Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Wilderness Areas (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate this subject, not least because it allowed me to spend last weekend hill walking in the Scottish highlands and to justify that as research. The Under-Secretary may like to know that I visited An Teallach—a magnificent mountain just above Loch Broom on Wester Ross. I reflected, as everyone who walks the Scottish hills must do, that we are custodians of a truly spectacular landscape that is unique in the world.
There is a growing consensus that particular areas of the Scottish hills are under great pressure from tourism, recreational use and all the other factors that arise from a mass leisure society, and that such areas merit special protection backed by Government regulation and administration. That is especially true of areas around Loch Lomond and the Cairngorms, where there is an overwhelming case for national parks.
We must be careful that regulations and controls designed to protect areas do not smother or stifle the people who live and work in those communities. The last thing that we want is another undemocratic quango. Democratic accountability and input from local communities are essential. However, the need for special protection and regulation is undeniable. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to pursue that aspect in detail, because he has a constituency interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who also has great expertise in the subject, feels strongly that there is a need for national parks, and I know that he would have liked to be present this morning to hear this important debate.
Last year, the World Conservation Union published a report, "Paths for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe", which was welcomed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and strongly supported by Scottish Natural Heritage. However, there has been a conspicuous silence from the Scottish Office so far, and it is suggested that the Department is less than enthusiastic about the report. I shall be glad if the Minister will give the report a warm welcome and describe the steps being taken by the Scottish Office to implement the report's recommendations.
The rest of the highlands, beyond the high-pressure hot spots of the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond, and the wilderness areas receive fewer visitors and are therefore less controversial, but they are every bit as special. Their vulnerability arises not from the rise of mass leisure but

from centuries of neglect and abuse. We think of the highlands as a wilderness, but as Francis Fraser Darling wrote in his classic account of highlands and islands ecology, it is a man-made wilderness and a unnecessary desert, and it could be restored and regenerated with the right land use and management. Jim Hunter, the historian of the highlands crofting community, pointed out that to describe the highlands and island as a wilderness or unspoilt, as people frequently do, is to abuse both the language and history.
Jim Hunter has cited the words of the Canadian novelist Hugh MacLennan, who is a great grandson of a 19th-century immigrant from the Scottish highlands, and who, in an essay called "Scotchman's Return", recorded some impressions of the highlands from which his ancestors had been expelled just a century before. In MacLennan's view, in some ways the landscapes of highland Scotland resembled those of the Canadian Arctic, but he found one fundamental difference.
In his essay, MacLennan wrote:
This Highland emptiness only a few hundred miles above the massed population of England is a far different thing from the emptiness of our own North-West Territories. Above the 60th parallel in Canada, you feel that nobody but God has ever been there before you. But in a deserted Highland Glen, you feel that everyone who ever mattered is dead and gone.
A similar point was made more recently by the chairman of the north west region of Scottish Natural Heritage, Sir John Lister-Kaye, in a pamphlet which he published last year called "Ill Fares the Land". He points to the great damage caused by sporting estates over the past century, and their role in the general process of environmental degradation of the highlands. Sir John wrote that the sporting estates were a purely extractive form of land use, extracting nutrients from an already impoverished landscape, and returning nothing to it.
It is often claimed by patrons of sporting estates that the estates provide some kind of economic boost to the highlands, but that is yet another myth. Deer stalking estates cover almost 20 per cent. of the total land area of Scotland, but red deer management was estimated by Scottish Natural Heritage in 1991 to provide only 316 full-time and 458 part-time jobs in the whole of Scotland, with 173 downstream jobs. The total income from commercial shooting and from subsequent venison sales was about £8 million.
That has to be set against the annual income from recreational activities such as hiking and hill walking, which the Scottish tourist board estimates brings about £270 million a year to Scotland. That estimate was made in 1989, and the figure today is probably nearer –300 million.
Such misuse and abuse of land in the highlands has reduced much of it to what is now perceived as wilderness—an empty, depopulated and degraded landscape, which also suffers from environmental and social and economic degradation.
It does not have to be like that. The scenic and ecological integrity of the highlands can be protected and enhanced, while promoting healthy and economically active rural communities. The two go best together: wilderness does not have to mean emptiness. To the extent that the highlands are devoid of people, it is not to the benefit of nature or the environment but rather to their active detriment, because it leads directly to neglect and abuse.


I should like to make a comparison between Scotland and Norway. It is an apt comparison, and will be recognised as such by the Minister, because it was used by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), at the time of the setting up of Scottish Natural Heritage three or four years ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that Scotland's ecology was more like that of Scandinavia than that of southern Britain.
Two years ago, Scottish Natural Heritage supported a study visit to the Hardaland region of western Norway. It took a representative group involved in land use community issues in rural Scotland, and a report of the visit was published last year in a pamphlet called "Scotland and Norway: a Study in Land Use". In ecological and climatic terms, the Hardaland region has much in common not just with Scotland in general but with the highlands in particular, including incessant rainfall. Like the highlands, Hardaland was extensively deforested centuries ago, but, unlike Scotland, the natural forest has been allowed to regenerate over the past 150 to 200 years.
The biggest difference is that, although the Hardaland region is slightly smaller than the highlands, it carries almost twice the population—414,000, compared with just over 200,000. About half the Hardaland population is in the city of Bergen, but even beyond that, in the rural areas the population is significantly greater in Hardaland than in the highlands. The reason for that difference lies in the system of land use and forestry that is employed in Hardaland.
In Scotland, forests are owned by large private estates or large state enterprises such as the Forestry Commission. In Norway, the tradition is to combine a small family farm with a small family forest. Typically, the family farm in Hardaland consists of about 10 hectares of land and about 60 hectares of forest per family.
Land use and land ownership in Norway is small-scale and decentralised. Forestry and agriculture are integrated at all levels of the system, and Government intervention and support are geared to encourage a range of farming and family-linked activities. That is in contrast to the highlands, where all support is focused on intensive sheep farming or blanket forestry.
The Minister will remember that I wrote to him a few weeks ago asking why support could not be provided to people who wish to raise goats for cashmere wool in the highlands, instead of all support being directed towards sheep or forestry. The Minister said that that was not possible, but it is exactly the kind of multi-purpose farming that is carried on in Norway, and we should encourage it more in the Scottish highlands.
The result of such diversified farming is healthy and stable rural communities in Norway, and a landscape that is obviously cared for and looked after. That is obvious to any visitor, and the land provides employment and income for local people. The contrast between that kind of community and landscape and the so-called wilderness areas of Scotland could not be more stark.
The fundamental difference between Scotland and Norway is one that I have not yet mentioned—land ownership. Land use and land management ultimately depend upon the control and ownership of the land. In

Norway, the people own the land upon which they live and work. As the Minister well knows, in the highlands the land and its products are in the hands of a tiny few.
It is depressing, but far from surprising, to read that the titles of the top landowners of 1995 are those of the top landowners of 1875. They are the Duke of Atholl, the Countess of Sutherland, Cameron of Locheil and lesser grandees all the way down the social scale. Of course, there has been some turnover of ownership, but even where land has changed hands, the community has had no say, influence or input whatever.
Land ownership in the highlands is a speculative market for private investors, who buy up the highlands for the same reason that they buy up jewellery or oil paintings—to get a tax advantage. It is somewhere to store surplus cash. The sale and transfer of estates bears no relation to the environmental needs of the land or the interests of local people. It is a lottery, with a responsible landowner perhaps emerging now and again, but more frequently estates pass into the hands of people who have no genuine or long-term interest in the highlands.
I want to give one or two examples of the resulting fruits of land speculation. The Knoydart estate has 16,500 acres. It is one of the jewels in the highlands crown. It was sold for –1.7 million to a company called Titaghur plc, a jute manufacturing company with half a dozen mills and 17,000 employees in India. It also has a reported debt of £67 million, and the company is apparently going bust. I hear that the Indian authorities have served an extradition order on its chairman. What on earth are we doing allowing an estate like Knoydart to pass into the hands of such a company?
Strathconnan estate has 60,000 acres. It was sold recently for between –1 million and –3 million to the Danish owners of the Lego toy company. It is notable that Lego's owners would not have been able to make such a purchase in Denmark, because the Danish Agricultural Act 1973 excludes the purchase of land for recreation or hobby farming. It also prohibits wide disparities between the selling price of land and its productive value. It is not simply that Scots would not be able to make such a purchase in Denmark; even the Danes cannot speculate in that way—but they are allowed to come to the highlands and do it there.
The openness of the land lottery is well illustrated by an article in the Aberdeen Press and Journal 29 June last year. It quoted a company called Bowlts, in Elgin, which was trying to sell the Strathvaich estate. The article said:
A great deal of interest has come, not only from Britain but also … America, Canada, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy and the Far East"—
interest from everywhere, it seems, but the local community. How could there be local interest, with an asking price of £2.5 million?
The issue matters deeply, because a feudal pattern of land ownership is not a harmless relic from another age; it profoundly distorts the social and economic life of the highlands, and it contributes directly to the environmental degradation and the economic and social decline associated with that.


That was recognised by the Highlands and Islands development board in a consultation document in June 1978, in which it called for greater powers for the board over land use and ownership. It stated on page 7:
Detailed case studies … have illustrated the effects of losses of production, tenancies and employment in fragile areas on the structure and viability of local communities. In some cases, whole communities have been put at risk. These studies illustrate the clash which can, and does occur between the interests of owner and community in the Highlands and Islands, and emphasises the measure of power, for good or ill, that can be wrought by one private individual over the lives of whole communities … under present legislation, the only necessary qualification for wielding this power is sufficient means to purchase the land.
That must end. The management of Scotland's wilderness areas and the prosperity and future of highlands communities cannot be left to the whims of the speculator and the dilettante. Nor can they be held for ever in the hands of an unelected few, who owe their positions of power to nothing but the accident of birth.
I want to suggest four ways in which we can begin to change the position. First, we need to know who owns the land, how much, and where. We need a comprehensive land registry, open and available to the public, of a kind not available in Britain since the late 19th century—150 years is too long a wait for such basic and essential information. It is time the Government acted and made it available to the public.
The second change must be in the taxation of land. Scotland's landed classes thought that they had pulled a neat trick last year, when, in the other place, an amendment was moved to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, abolishing sporting rates on large land estates. That is worth about –2 million to the wealthiest land owners in Scotland. On 22 January, an article on the property page of The Mail on Sunday reported that the exemption was
the big bang that Scotland's hunting, shooting and fishing fraternity has been waiting for. From April, the tax paid on land used for field sports will disappear, as announced in the last Budget. As a result, the value of sporting land is set to rise".
I believe that that move will blow up in the faces of Scotland's landowners. It has placed the question of land taxation firmly back on the political agenda. If sporting rates had been left undisturbed, perhaps no one would have questioned them more deeply. Now that they have been abolished, there is the unacceptable position of large land estates paying no local taxes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's blanket condemnation of all landlords in Scotland, which is quite unreasonable in view of the high standard of management on many estates, especially with regard to sporting rates. Is he saying that he would rather continue the policy under which Scotland pays substantially more sporting rates than England? Does he believe that that unfair practice should continue?

Mr. Macdonald: The Minister cannot possibly compare the large sporting estates of Scotland with estates in England. The difference is obvious. Indeed, it was apparent to the Victorian legislators who originally decided to impose sporting rates. I also do not see how the Minister can justify the anomaly of exempting sporting estates from paying local rates when even a Holiday hotel has to pay local rates, as do other businesses.

The exemption for agricultural purposes is accepted, and nobody challenges that. However, there is no justification for exempting recreational and holiday estates from local taxation. That point was made to the Scottish Office last year in a joint letter to the Secretary of State from the chairmen of Scotland's rating valuation tribunals, which are independent.
In a letter that was leaked to the Glasgow Herald, they condemned the exemption as indefensible, and said:
It is clearly totally wrong that a large estate … valued well into the seven figure bracket, should pay no local taxes".
That is especially true when they use local services such as roads, the snow clearing service and the police service. That is especially relevant to the salmon estates, which make great use of the police service. Does the Minister think that those chairmen are wrong?
No Government who are not in the grip of Tory landlords could possibly defend that anomaly. Large landed estates will have to be brought back into the taxation system. The move to exempt sporting rates has vilified the whole issue of the taxation of large land estates. We should now use the opportunity created by that to conduct a comprehensive review of the fiscal position of large land estates throughout Scotland, not just in the highlands. We should consider taxing land values as a means of taxing land speculation out of existence.
Taxation can help to deflate the speculative lottery of estate sales, but we need to do more than that. We require a set of public interest criteria that a prospective purchaser would have to fulfil before being permitted to take over ownership of any large estate.
That is not an entirely new idea. In the same report that I cited earlier, the HIDB called for changes to the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Act 1965 to bring about more effective powers over rural land use. In that report, published in June 1978, it called for special powers in designated areas in the Highlands to veto any prospective land sale that did not conform to the HIDB's development plan for that region. Its proposals are contained in detail in section 68 of its report, a section called "Mechanism of Control Over the Sale of Land." It points out that its proposals have parallels in legislation in at least six European countries, notably Denmark and Norway.
We should bring out those HIDB proposals and examine them once again. I would make three changes to that 1978 plan. The first involves the fact that the HIDB, or Highlands and Islands Enterprise as it is now, is probably not the appropriate body to undertake such a scheme for the 1990s. A specialised land commission or a land use council would be more appropriate. It is worth remembering that a land use council was proposed in the 1970s by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in its report "Land Resource Use in Rural Scotland". Today, the need for a land use council is even greater.
Secondly, the scheme should apply not just to small designated areas, as the HIDB suggested, but to the whole of the highlands. Thirdly, from the point of view of the public interest, the development criteria against which large land sales should be evaluated should contain not just the social and economic goals that the HIDB were concentrating on in the 1970s, but the environmental goals that we now accept as being profoundly important.
The HIDB proposal, or my changes to it, would involve no compulsory purchasing, no nationalisation, no state ownership and no cost to the public purse, but it would


leave a competitive, tightly regulated market in the sale of land. It would soon begin to have a dramatic effect on that market by weeding out the most unsuitable speculators and purchasers of estates—the Kluges and the Schellenbergs. It would contribute gradually to the deflating of the speculative value of Scottish estates. Only people with a genuine environmental, social and economic interest in developing the highlands would commit themselves to buying. That should have a significant effect on lowering prices.
That in turn should make a purchase easier for public interest groups such as the John Muir trust, which has been active in recent years, and it should bring estates more within the reach of local communities. That final aspect is the most important. We need to introduce measures that will begin to return the land to the people and to local communities so that they can manage the land directly.
Three local, democratically elected and accountable land trusts exist in the highlands. The Stornoway trust in my constituency has been going since the 1920s, and the Assynt trust in Lochinver was formed amid great publicity and great public approval last year. There is also the Borve trust in Skye. Those trusts will act as an inspiration and as a model that other communities will wish to follow.
The Government should actively intervene in the land market when local communities express the desire for more democratic control and direct ownership of their land. The initiative must come from local people, but, when it does, the Government should help in all ways possible, including financial. In that way, step by step and estate by estate, such community initiatives could begin to change the face of the highlands.
That would, of course, cost money, but resources are available that could be used even now. I wish to cite just a couple. In January, for example, the Duke of Atholl, whose lands are estimated to be valued at about –140 million, claimed –400,000 from the Forestry Commission for planting tress in Glen Bruar. Lord Strathnaver is claiming –150,000 from Scottish Natural Heritage, not for planting trees, but for not cutting them in Loch Shell in Sutherland.
Those are two of the biggest landowners in Britain—the fifth and sixth biggest respectively. They are engaged in a racket at the expense of the taxpayer. Lord Strathnaver wishes to be paid not to chop down trees and not to commit an act of environmental vandalism. If millions of pounds can be handed out to large landowners for doing literally nothing, the ordinary people of the highlands have a right to Government support and financial assistance when they aspire to take over their land.
That is one source of funding. Other resources could be used to finance the success of community ownership. Last financial year, for example, the sums allocated to promoting environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland were underspent by 86 per cent.—some –4 million. The previous year, underspend totalled around –3 million.
What is the explanation for those massive underspends in environmentally sensitive area budgets, and why can they not be diverted into helping communities such as Assynt to reclaim and restore land? Why can those funds not be used to help communities that wish to purchase

small estates that are up for disposal from the Forestry Commission? Local communities wish to take over those small plantations, so why cannot the Government step in and help them realise their ambitions?
Those various alternative sources of funding are available to the Scottish Office, but a public fund is already in existence and it is even more ideally suited to that purpose. The National Heritage Memorial Fund started life as the National Land Fund. It was established by Hugh Dalton in 1949 to purchase, in his words,
the loveliest parts of this land",
as a dedication to the memory of the war dead and for
the use and enjoyment of the living for ever".
Unfortunately, after 32 years of Conservative Government since 1949, and two name changes to the fund, it has become better known for purchasing stately homes, sculptures and oil paintings than for buying land for the people—its original purpose. The next Labour Government can and must change that. If the fund can spend £1.5 million on a single painting for the National Gallery, as it did last year, it can afford to spend many millions of pounds more on its original mission of buying the land back for the public.
I have made four suggestions not just for the management, but for the restoration and regeneration, of Scotland's so-called wilderness areas. Those measures, or measures like them, would bring about a revolution in land management and land ownership in the highlands. They should be a major priority of the next Labour Government and of our new Scottish Parliament, so that local communities in Scotland can at last retrieve that power over their lives, which is the essential foundation of the economic revival and environmental regeneration of the highlands.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The House is greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for introducing this debate. The highlands cover almost half of Scotland's land mass, and much of the land covered falls into the category of wilderness, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke. Like the hon. Gentleman, I too have long been interested in the use of that land for enjoyment and economic activity that retains the environmental attractiveness and scenic interest for visitors.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the 1978 Highlands and Islands development board proposals, which, alas, dropped out of sight as soon as the present Government took office. Those proposals followed rather closely recommendations that I made in a private Member's Bill back in 1973, which were debated in the Scottish Grand Committee.
The essence of the proposals seems not to have dated entirely and, like the hon. Gentleman, I very much hope that they will be reviewed and reconsidered at least as a starting point for discussions about how to deal with the conflicts, in the highlands in particular, over the use of land and the conflicts of interest between those who effectively regard the devastated areas of wilderness as places that should not be touched, and those with other views.
The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to Fraser Darling, the father of the study of the problem, and his famous west highland survey, and to remind us that the


present degradation of much of that land is due to human intervention and neglect and, at various times in history, to a single concept being brought to bear on the use of the land, to the exclusion of other interests.
Sadly, it is not the case, as the Minister perhaps implied in his intervention, that all is well in the highlands. He made a rather sweeping attack, which I thought misrepresented the hon. Member for Western Isles, who was not attacking landlords in general. The hon. Gentleman criticised some landlords for some activities, although I do not entirely agree with him about at least one case—that of Lord Strathnaver—which affects my constituency.
In that case, the principle is not unlike that of the set-aside arrangements: if one is not going to harvest a crop and derive an income from one's plantations of trees, it is reasonable to be compensated. However, it is a detail, about which we could have a useful discussion.
It is clear that there are still significant conflicts. I am sorry to say that there is even an eviction case in my constituency which recalls past events. It involves James Moffat and Forest Farms near Croick in Strath Carron. It is a most distressing case. Scottish Natural Heritage was involved from the beginning, although it was not responsible for the threatened eviction of Mr. Moffat, who is the last remaining sheep rearer in a valley that produced great flocks of sheep which were known at the sales—especially the Lairg sales in Sutherland—as the best in the county.
That Mr. Moffat and his family should be left without a home, and the fact that the eviction means the disappearance of his sheep enterprise from the valley, is a reflection on the inadequacy of the existing arrangements for multi-purpose land use. As I said, SNH was involved at an early stage in order to try to encourage the development of native broadleaved species there and supported the new proprietors in their enterprise, but the way in which the matter has been handled is wholly unsatisfactory.
The Minister will be aware of another case in my constituency—that of Mr. Alec Sinclair of Stirkoke in Caithness, who owns the farm of Munsary, which is a large area close to Dubh lochs of Shielton. The Dubh lochs were properly designated as sites of special scientific interest by SNH. The matter was originally handled very well, with suitable management agreements being entered into with the proprietors.
However, when Mr. Sinclair wanted to sell his farm, which was certainly not in the same category of sensitivity or importance as the Dubh lochs of Shielton, the SNH moved in and proceeded, without adequate inspection, to have it declared an SSSI. It has thereby destroyed the prospect of afforestation in the area and the prospect of Mr. Sinclair using the resources drawn from the sale to develop appropriately his low-ground farming activity.
That case is a very sharp illustration of how unsatisfactory the present arrangements are for considering multi-purpose land use. It should not be possible for an agency, which is ultimately able to dispose of such matters without appeal to the Secretary of State, to be able to intervene and destroy a venture of the kind on which Mr. Sinclair was embarked. Parliament will have to return to the question whether it is satisfactory not to have a democratic appeals system against intervention by such an environmental agency. I do not believe it is, but the picture is perhaps more kaleidoscopic than when I first discussed these matters in the early and mid-1970s.
As the hon. Member for Western Isles said, it is true that land use has remained in the hands of some of the great landowners, but new elements are appearing—such as the arrival of great foreign investors such as the owners of Lego from Denmark. A further new development is the acquisition of land by bodies whose sole purpose is environmental protection. I am thinking of, for example, the John Muir trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, both of whom have acquired substantial estates in Sutherland in the past two years. The John Muir trust has an estate at Kinlochbervie, and the RSPB has an estate at Forsinard.
Although I have some admiration for the way in which the RSPB has set about its task, I am concerned to ensure that the acquisition of estates by organisations with a single use in mind does not mean the exclusion of economic activity, and that, in their understandable enthusiasm to protect what they own, such organisations do not seek to exclude visitors, hikers or those who are of great value to the communities in those areas.
Nor would I wish that type of organisation to have priority over developments which are locally owned and locally based. The Assynt trust development is, in its way, a model. Indeed, the extent to which public bodies were prepared to be involved in the Assynt trust was particularly encouraging. It was financially backed by the local enterprise company and the Highland regional council in the first instance, and it is possible that we shall see the kind of multi-purpose use evident in Norway, to which the hon. Member for Western Isles drew attention, which seems to be very much a model. I am particularly interested in the thinking of Assynt on the use of small plantations greatly to enhance the environment.
I do not wish to take up the time of the debate, because many hon. Members want to speak. I am most grateful for the opportunity to support the hon. Member for Western Isles in his call for the study of four specific measures. The land register, the taxation of under-used land, the set of public interest criteria against which to judge activities and the bringing of land under local management and control are all worthy of debate. His initiative should be strongly backed.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be extremely brief. I add my congratulations to those which have already been given to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) for bringing this very important issue before the House. Although this is a fairly lengthy debate today, the subject merits additional attention, and should certainly be taken forward by the Government and Opposition parties.
It is worth while reminding the House that, when we talk about land, especially in the highlands and islands of Scotland, we do so with a great deal of passion. Seared into our psyche is the memory of the highland clearances:
The people damned by the black-faced ram, And the factor's fire-raisers"—
as the folk song goes. That memory always colours our attitudes to such matters.
It is important that we stress to the Government that we are looking not for a patronising attitude toward the highlands and islands, but for positive action, so that our people may remain in their glens, by their lochsides, and earn a decent living in a modern context. We have moved


well past the stage of thinking of the highlands and islands as having a productivity of half an ounce of grouse per acre. We now recognise that the people of the area can bring important factors into play through tourism, their skills and their knowledge, and, particularly with the development of information technology, by work which makes it possible for them to stay in those remote areas.
I emphasise the importance attached by the hon. Member for Western Isles to the ownership and management of land. All of us want to see a correct balance. I certainly endorse the view that we should not ever have the attitude that all Scottish landowners are good and everybody else is bad, because the reality is that there is a mixture of good and bad landowners from all different origins in the highlands and islands. We want a people-centred policy: centred on the people whose linguistic and natural skills should enable them to make a living in their own area. We are looking for a sensible balance.
I remind the Minister that the Public Accounts Committee substantially criticised the failure to develop a land registry in Scotland. A report in November showed that no registration had taken place north of the Tay. It is high time that a register operated in the highlands and islands. I welcome the fact that my party has set up an independent land commission to which everyone is invited to give evidence, so that we may try to process information a little faster than Government tactics have made possible.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I shall also be brief, because time is running out. The highlands are also dear to me, as a representative of the central belt of Scotland and as a Scotsman. In fact, they are dear to every person in Scotland. I was a councillor for 16 years, and I ended up as the chairman of the Lothian planning committee. We set up the reforestation of the central belt in the moorlands between Strathclyde and Lothian. I believe that the scheme is going very well. The trees were scientifically planted and looked after, because the lands needed that investment.
As a keen angler, and also, I must admit, as a member of a quango—non-paid, by the way—because of my role as an adviser to the forestry commission of the south and west of Scotland, my eyes were opened to what was going on and what could be done under good management. I had to compliment the commission: I had no criticism of it at all. It gives access and opens up places to the public in and around Galloway, Dumfries and the Borders region.
My aim is to achieve a joint effort. The panic button is set off when I see privatisation. Privatisation means "Private: Keep Out". One of my ambitions—it should be an ambition of all Scotsmen—is to get to know Scotland. How can people get to know Scotland when there is a "Keep Out" notice? How can we get to know the land of our birth when people are standing there, defying us, pushing us away and building obstacles, so that we cannot even stop our cars at the side of the road?
Those notices and obstacles are all part and parcel of the supposedly well-run estates. I have paid to fish in some parts of Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would agree

that the flow lands have a beauty of their own. Again, the panic button was pressed when people were talking about using the lands for a dump for toxic or nuclear waste. The whole of Scotland stood up and said, "No, you can't do that." It was once a proposal, and I hope that it will never become a reality.
I join my colleagues from Scotland in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) for raising the subject. I emphasise how sensitive it is. I am sure that, as a Scotsman from the part of the world that I was praising earlier, the Minister is well aware of the sensitivity of and need for this debate.
It is all very well to say that there are well-managed estates. So there are, but others are the private domain of a group of people who are intent on using their land for one purpose only, and the community around it can get lost as far as they are concerned. There has to be public input, and for large tracts of Scotland there must be joint responsibility among the local authorities—the elected representatives—and obviously the Government, as well as private owners, landlords and others.
As a representative of the semi-rural area of Midlothian, I appreciate the country. As a miner, I used to use the countryside as a lung. Scotland should be used as a lung for people in industrial areas, and they should have access to land where they can enjoy its beauty and the fresh air. I hope that the debate has succeeded in emphasising certain points which have been made by my colleagues, and that the Minister will reply positively.

Mr. John McFall: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald)? He has done us a great favour in introducing this debate. I shall talk exclusively about a wilderness area in my constituency: Loch Lomond.
I had to telephone the Minister's office to get a copy of the Government's response to the Hutchison report on Loch Lomond, despite the fact that the Minister and Mr. Magnus Magnusson publicly launched it on Monday, and that every Scottish journalist with an interest had that document. Will the Minister have some respect for the Opposition, and at least give us information at the same time as journalists receive it? Also, I hope that Sir Russell Hillhouse, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Office, will ensure that the civil servants act impartially, so that we obtain documents at the same time as journalists.
It has taken a long time for a response to the document to appear. Ten years ago, the Government set up the Countryside Commission to consider Loch Lomond and the national parks. The Countryside Commission reported in July 1990, and the Government refused to accept its recommendations. The response to the document on Monday is illustrated in the comments in The Herald, which referred to a
Trumpet of disbelief for Loch Lomond's voluntary solution.
I have been very concerned about Loch Lomond for many years. On at least three occasions over the past six or seven years, I have convened meetings in my constituency which, on each occasion, were attended by at least 150 people from all parts of the political spectrum—by those from the town and the countryside, and by environmentalists, recreationists and anglers. On every occasion, a firm and universal view about the problems of Loch Lomond was expressed. The only person who is out of step is the Secretary of State.


I can inform the Secretary of State and the Minister that the community body, the Friends of Loch Lomond, met last night. They described the document to which I have referred as "procrastination". The Minister has friends among the Friends of Loch Lomond—witness the fact that three members of the executive council of that body were appointed by the Secretary of State to the Hutchison committee. They are deeply dismayed by the response in the document.
Sir Peter Hutchison, whom the Secretary of State appointed personally, said on Monday that the Secretary of State must not lose ownership of the problem, because it is not a local problem; it is not within the fiefdom of the local authorities. It is a national problem, and the Secretary of State has abdicated his responsibility to Loch Lomond and to the national dimension.
The Secretary of State is cheating on the timetable. He set up the Countryside Commission 10 years ago to examine the issue. It reported, and he immediately shelved its report. He set up the Hutchison committee a few years ago. It reported two years ago, and he delayed a response until last Monday. The Secretary of State has passed the Hutchison committee report on to the local authorities, but he has given them no succour or indication of what finance will be available. That is a complete and utter abdication of his responsibilities.
I remind the Minister that the Countryside Commission report stated that Loch Lomond should have national park status, because, among other aspects, it would then join 130 other countries which have national parks in having indicative land strategies for land management, for key land uses, for the establishment of land management forums, for the integration of grants for conservation and agriculture, and for protection for wilderness land, better land management and access to open country.
It is crystal clear that we are totally out of step with our neighbours in Europe. Not only are we out of step: we will not have an opportunity to have grants and financial assistance that are available to other countries.
The essence of the document published on Monday is that the Secretary of State has set up a joint committee, as witnessed in paragraph 12 on page 7, to consider a joint committee. According to paragraph 12, the joint committee of Loch Lomond park authority, which exists at the moment, will be superseded by another joint committee, which will then consider the feasibility of having the Loch Lomond park authority and the Trossachs as part of yet another joint committee.
Leaving aside the question of the creation of a joint committee to consider a joint committee, why in the interim, cannot the Minister consider the whole area? If the Secretary of State so decides, he could exclude the Trossachs now, and could fund the existing joint committee—the Loch Lomond park authority—to the minimum of 75 per cent, which the Hutchison committee report recommended. He could also provide additional borrowing for capital consents to the constituent local authorities. However, he is not doing that, because, contrary to utchison's recommendations, the document contains no hint of what the funding will be.
The Secretary of State could appeal to the local authorities today—I would join in that appeal from the House of Commons—to give over their powers to the joint committee, as recommended by Hutchison, so that the finance, consent and lead from central Government would be given. The Secretary of State would have the

full support of the official Opposition in that. While the interim committee looks to the future and considers whether the Loch Lomond and Trossachs areas should be separate or combined, at least we would be starting presently to consider the issue of a management programme for Loch Lomond.
Either the community and I are hopeless in advocating the case, or the Secretary of State is impervious to logical argument. I believe that the community would resoundingly state that it is the latter. The Secretary of State has ignored the point time and time again. As I have said, this is not a local issue: it is a national issue.
I cannot stress too strongly the urgency of the matter. There were a number of distinguished speakers at the meeting I held at Loch Lomond a couple of years ago. One was Mr. John Arnott, who used to be the vice-chairman of the Countryside Commission in Scotland. He advocated the case for national park status for Loch Lomond. About structure, and taking a comprehensive view of all the land and other uses, he said:
Elsewhere in Britain this was not so in the creation of the national parks … which had two purposes: preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the areas, and promoting their enjoyment by the public. It was not so in the creation of the Regional Park … in Loch Lomond"—
because the present structure under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981 simply stated that the park was being set up as
An extensive area of land, part of which is devoted to the recreational needs of the public.
If the Secretary of State was serious about taking the Hutchison committee report at face value, he would have dwelt on page 14 of the report, where the management philosophy was elaborated. It stated that of crucial importance is environmental sustainability. It contains sections on
maintaining ecological health and integrity … fostering social and economic wellbeing … maintaining fundamentally the rural character",
as that would provide
environmentally responsible enjoyment of the countryside.
The Hutchison report's philosphy was eminently sensible, but there is not one iota of sense in the document published on Monday, to which I am referring. The community will agree with me about that. The Herald, The Scotsman and others have, over the past few years, advocated a campaign to stop Loch Lomond turning into an environmental disaster area. Every day the Secretary of State delays, the more chance there is that it will be turned into an environmental disaster area.
At the moment, Loch Lomond is simply an unregulated pond. Anyone can travel up the M6 with a boat, launch it on the loch at any point, and travel at any speed on the loch. The Secretary of State will be aware of the death on the loch last year of a young girl—Ann McAulay—because no regulations were in force. As we speak today, no regulations have been put in place, simply because of the Government's lack of interest in Loch Lomond.
What sort of interest is shown in Loch Lomond? The Secretary of State has moved in the past few months. He gave planning permission for a development on the shores of Loch Lomond to Dr. Michael Kelly and his friends. They established a plan, which they put to the district


council several years ago. Notwithstanding the district council's unanimous rejection of the plan, the Secretary of State decided to go ahead, and give Dr. Kelly permission.
Dr. Kelly and his colleagues are the equivalent of the Loch Lomond derivative merchants. In this case, they are not playing around with other people's money. It is much more serious, because they are playing around with the natural landscape, the environment and the conservation jewel of Loch Lomond.
From day one, when they put their proposals to Dumbarton district council, Dr. Kelly and his colleagues did not mention a business plan. Indeed, they refused to put one forward. They still refuse to put one forward to the Secretary of State. However, in the Secretary of State's idleness—that is the only way I can describe it, as he paid no thought to the matter—he gave Dr. Kelly and his colleagues permission to go ahead.
The Secretary of State gave his permission in December. Three weeks later, Dr. Kelly's colleague in the consortium was talking about getting £4 million from Dumbartonshire Enterprise to upgrade the structure of Loch Lomond. Dr. Kelly is on record as saying of Dumbarton district council that there were ideological reasons and "irrational" political reasons. He said of the council:
They don't like private houses, that's 1950s
mentality.
I have some information for the Minister. Dumbarton district council unanimously refused permission, and the Tory group on the council rejected Dr. Kelly's proposal.
Dr. Kelly and his colleagues have now sold out. They went cap in hand to Dumbartonshire Enterprise, and said that they did not have the funds to go ahead with the development, despite boasts about what they would for the area. They asked Dumbartonshire Enterprise, "What will you do?" and Dumbartonshire Enterprise—a public body—is buying the land for £3 million.
It is scandalous in the first instance that the Secretary of State gave planning permission, but I applaud Dumbartonshire Enterprise, because this is an opportunity for a public body to intervene in the public interest for the good of the many, not the few. It is a classic example.
The Secretary of State has an awful lot to answer for on the issue. Had he accepted the Hutchison committee's report on any developers having to demonstrate their economic viability, he would not have got himself into this sorry mess. The local community is utterly against him in this matter, and, as I said, that goes across the entire political spectrum.
The Scottish Office released the greatest sleight-of-hand press release on Monday, in which it stated:
Funding of some £2.85 million over the next three years will be available to support the protection of the beautiful Loch Lomond and Trossachs area of Scotland.
I asked the House of Commons Library to look into the issue of new money, because the Government's response does not refer at all to finance. The Hutchison committee's report recommended more than £1 million in the first instance and 75 per cent. funding from central Government, but there is nothing in the document asbout nthe Hutchison committee's recommendations.
The Library contacted the Scottish Office yesterday about new money, and wrote to me with this reply:
Unfortunately, all the Scottish Office officials who deal with this are presently on the train from Edinburgh to London for tomorrow's debate. However, a colleague of theirs in Scotland tried to help and said that … although they know there is extra funding they are not sure if it is 'new'.
Scottish Natural Heritage's Loch Lomond office say that they are not sure exactly how the money is being made up and only know that the Scottish Office will make £850,000 available through Scottish Natural Heritage next year on top of SNH's support for the Park Authority.
That is a disgraceful situation. I charge the Minister with political sleight of hand in asserting that there is new money. I want chapter and verse about finance and where it is coming from when he comes to the Dispatch Box.
On a charitable basis, if we accept that there is new money, is it project-specific? Who will decide on the money—will it be a local body such as the Loch Lomond park authority, or will the park authority have to go on its knees to SNH to get the money? The track record in that area of SNH and others is not good.
Like the Minister, the chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage, Mr. Magnus Magnusson, has never come to one of my Loch Lomond conferences during the past few years. Mr. Magnusson has been a dutiful assistant and steward to the Government, but he is not doing very much on the environment or to assist local communities with their future.
Finally, on Loch Lomond, the urgency of the matter and the mechanisms for the new joint committee, I must refer to a speech by John Foster at the last conference that I convened. He was director of the Peak district national park from 1954 to 1968, and a director of the Countryside Commission from 1968 to 1985. The Countryside Commission is the organisation that the Minister set up to look into Loch Lomond in the late 1980s. It recommended national park status—a recommendation that the Secretary of State ignored.
Mr. Foster is also a member of Nature and National Parks for Europe. He said in his speech to my conference:
Quite simply, I believe that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs are so important that whatever powers are necessary to protect them from further deterioration should be put in place here and now. This really is fundamental to success in securing and implementing the range of planning and management strategies so badly needed for the area. There is not time for experimenting with less positive solutions. That is just fiddling while Loch Lomond burns—or, more accurately, while it deteriorates further … I believe it is vital to success to put in place an adequate mechanism for the management of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs now—not in 5 or 10 years time.
Sadly, the Secretary of State has moved the responsibility on to local authorities, at a time when they are up to their eyes in devising new structures for all the serious responsibilities they will have in the next year. Loch Lomond will not be their number one priority, because they are dealing with political issues across the whole local government spectrum.
In the interval, I will call another meeting about Loch Lomond, and I guarantee that between 100 and 150 people will attend. I hope that this time, belatedly, the Secretary of State will come along and listen to the local community. If the Government do not do anything, the official Opposition will do something. As soon as we get into government, we will establish a national park for Loch Lomond, so that we become part of the family of national parks in Europe, and at last something positive will be done for the environment and conservation in that most beautiful part of Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am pleased to reply to this debate. When an hon. Member tables a subject for a detailed debate, however, it is a pity that so little time is left for the Minister to reply, as it is most important to hear what the Government have to say.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on obtaining this debate, because he has shown a commendable interest in the natural heritage over the years. For that reason, I am a little disappointed that he spent most of his speech being so highly critical of landlords in Scotland. I listened carefully, and he did not even give credit to some landlords who are exceptionally good. By and large, he seemed to go down the road of compulsory purchase and compulsory ownership of land by the nation, which is certainly not a route down which I would wish to go. We want to be positive.
This debate has been incredibly negative—all "No, No, No", and turning down everything that one can think of. Hon. Members asked about "Parks for Life". Of course, we warmly welcomed it, because it runs in line with our plans for the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond.
In the short time left, I shall set out the Government's view of the main issues and the actions that we have taken to protect and enhance those large areas of Scotland that many would call wilderness.
The issue is one of management. The hon. Member for Western Isles spent too much time on ownership, but it is not ownership but how the land is managed that matters. That is where we put our emphasis, especially through Scottish Natural Heritage. We want to think about protection and enhancement of the natural heritage, enabling people who live in those areas to continue to derive worthwhile livings from them, the maintenance of the social systems around which such communities are constructed, and providing access for visitors.
Increasingly, our tourism is based on high-quality niche markets, such as country sports and those interested in wildlife. For many, the experience of wide open spaces without crowds is enough.
Wild land is not a new interest in Scotland. Many agencies have considered what needs to be done to maintain the value of our wild land, but we have to go forward with the knowledge, understanding and appreciation of what has happened in the past.
The mechanisms for achieving appropriate management have been subject to change in the past century. For example, the crofting system, on which the hon. Member for Western Isles is an expert, has provided the custodians of large areas of the north and west. Crofting offers a system of land management and a social structure which has bound nature and crofters together in partnership. I am glad that all the grant and loan schemes have been kept in place and enhanced wherever possible, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Hector Monro: Quickly, because time is rushing on.

Mr. Macdonald: The budget for environmentally sensitive areas was underspent by 8 per cent. in the last financial year and 7 per cent. in the previous financial year, which amounts to £4 million and £3 million respectively. Why cannot that be used to increase grants

to crofters, and why cannot some of it be used to allow communities to buy Forestry Commission woodland that is up for disposal?

Sir Hector Monro: I will come to expenditure later.
Even the most remote hill grazing was managed by crofting townships. At the heart of the system lies the concept of consent and partnership. Crofting is a good example of a management system in which ownership is secondary to good management. In Scotland, I see little case to be made for the view that good management necessarily requires ownership to be in the hands of the state or some independent structure.
Our landowners, whether of large estates or of smaller parcels in the hands of farmers and crofters, have long shown a deep understanding of the ways of nature, and they are keen to manage the land for the wider good.
We are convinced that the voluntary principle remains the basis for the management of our wild areas. When all concerned enter into arrangements voluntarily and work in a partnership with a common aim, the outcome is likely to be accepted by the community.
The voluntary principle, as well as providing the basis for moving forward with the greatest possible support, also offers flexibility. The basis for the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which I took through the House, is that voluntary principle, with compulsory back-up powers when required. By and large, it has stood the test of time pretty well.
The role of Scottish Natural Heritage—which was criticised by many hon. Members today—is vital. Our perception now is that the natural heritage of Scotland as a whole needs the benefit of an organisation to design and put in place a strategic approach. We have done that by introducing the successor body to the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council.
Those organisations came together to form SNH, which has been a great success, bearing in mind the fact that it has been in place for only three years. I give tremendous credit to the chairman, Magnus Magnusson. We have made significant steps forward under his leadership, particularly on the regionalisation of SNH, so that the organisation is much closer to the man in the countryside and the rural areas of Scotland.
Opposition Members, who tend to overlook the Government's commitment to conservation, should remember that, in 1991-92, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the NCCS received £25 million from the Government. In 1992-1993, the SNH received £34.6 million, and this coming year it will receive £41 million. Those substantial increases show the strong commitment of the Government to nature conservation in Scotland. We are committed over the next three years to fund conservation to the tune of £120 million.
I shall quickly refer to two issues which were raised in relation to the Cairngorms and to Loch Lomond. We set up the Cairngorms inquiry under Magnus Magnusson, which reported back in March 1993. The Government accepted the recommendation to set up a partnership, and that is going extremely well. Sir David Laird, who has taken over the chairmanship, will be able to announce the members of the partnership in a matter of weeks, and there should be an increased local government representation.


The Cairngorm partnership will be up and working in a relatively short time, and I am confident that it will be a significant factor in developing conservation in that part of Scotland. It will be funded by SNH, and it is expected that an office will be established in Grantown-on-Spey in the next couple of weeks.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) gave some erroneous information about Loch Lomond, and my announcement in Glasgow on Monday was far removed from the impression that he tried to give today. I noticed that The Herald has stated that the hon. Gentleman said that I was kicking Sir Peter Hutchison in the teeth, but the Government have accepted his whole report—lock, stock and barrel. Every one of a very large number of recommendations in the report have been accepted. I do not see how any Government could do more than accept what they have been offered in a report, and I welcome Sir Peter's report strongly.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton seems to misunderstand the joint board, which can, if agreed, hand over planning powers to the three authorities involved. The hon. Gentleman is very negative in his attitude.
The Government accept that the park authority is made up of two regional councils and two district councils, but the two regional councils will disappear, and their areas will be added to Argyll and Bute council. I see no reason why democratically elected bodies wanting to do their best for their own areas should not come together voluntarily with a positive approach to manage the Trossachs and Loch Lomond to the highest possible standards. It is negative and wrong for the hon. Gentleman to think that it will all be a failure.
Opposition Members have been highly critical of things which they allege we have not done. We were asked in the report to do something rapidly about byelaws, and we have done that. The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill last year contained references to byelaws, and those will hopefully be in place in a matter of weeks.
The byelaws will control maritime operations on the loch, and will assist in setting up a range of services. A boat has been ordered and will be ready soon, and we hope that speeds of boats on the loch will be controlled, and that areas for every sport will be looked after adequately. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to wave pieces of paper and say that we have done nothing.
There are powers in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act to set up joint boards, which could be voluntary or—if we ever wanted to do this in the future—compulsory. I hope that it will never be necessary to do the latter. Much has been done to prepare the paperwork for the three new local authorities which are responsible for Loch Lomond, and it is right that we should wait until April 1996 for the change. It would have been wrong to carry out the change this year, as two of the authorities are going out of existence in a year's time.
That does not in any way stop those authorities from supporting the park authority in doing all the work required this year. That is why we have provided

substantial funding for the next three years of nearly £3 million. That figure includes £340,000 to the ranger and marine service, and £460,000 to be spent in the Trossachs area to deal with the trails, rights of way, tracks and visitor facilities. Much has been going on, and it is quite wrong for the hon. Member for Dumbarton and others to give the impression that there has been an unnecessary delay.
Some of the statements in the press have been quite wrong. In The Herald today, Lady Glasgow has called for a joint board with planning powers, but those powers will exist if that is what the three authorities wish. They will have the planning authority, despite what was said so wrongly in The Daily Telegraph yesterday. Other comments—particularly in the Scottish Daily Express—have welcomed the steps which we are taking to develop the park.
I would have liked to go into some detail on the important issues of deer and forestry in Scotland, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so. We should certainly pay tribute to the Red Deer Commission for the way in which it has set up deer management groups. It has substantially improved culls, and is providing an acceptable habitat for deer herds in Scotland.
On forestry, we have made a good start in Glen Affric, and special grants have been made available for Scots pine. We are moving towards fulfilling our European directives on habitats and on birds. I wanted to pay tribute to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and the Government are providing large sums of money to voluntary organisations which are doing a good job.
I also want to say something about mountain safety, and I pay tribute to those involved in mountain rescue services and the police. I must say yet again—I have said it umpteen times this winter and last winter—that we want people to come to the Scottish highlands to enjoy hill walking and mountaineering, but they must listen to warnings about avalanches and bad weather, and they must remember the short period of daylight that is available in midwinter in Scotland.
All in all, we have a great deal to discuss. I wanted to talk positively, not negatively, about those matters, as I believe that we have an immense duty to the highlands and wildernesses of Scotland to provide the best possible service we can and ensure that they are enhanced, and not run down, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton said they were.
The highlands are the most wonderful and precious asset to us in Scotland. In the main, they have been well looked after by many different owners, good and sometimes, sadly, bad. By and large, the farmers, landlords and landowners of Scotland have done an immense amount to enhance Scotland's scenery. I want to ensure that, through SNH, that continues and improves, and the management of Scotland's land is in the best possible hands. We have set up the management and policies to ensure that that is carried out adequately in the future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We now move on to the debate on local government in Birmingham.

Local Government (Birmingham)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), may I say that it is obvious from the number of hon. Members in the Chamber that there is a great deal of interest in the debate, so I make a plea for brief contributions by hon. Members both on the Back and on the Front Benches.

Dame Jill Knight: For months now, there have been hints, rumours and press reports showing that something fishy is going on in Labour-controlled Birmingham city council; but until I started to bring all the allegations together and listed and tabulated reports and events, I did not know the half of it.
It is important to say at the outset that Birmingham city council receives some £1.16 billion per annum from taxpayers and business rate payers. That is a considerable sum in any man's language. There is no doubt that substantial sums have been chiselled from that budget and misused. Other sums have disappeared without trace. Furthermore, it now seems that large sums have been misappropriated to gain political advantage for the Labour party in Birmingham, and some money has been used to help extremists against moderate Labour.
I therefore make two separate charges against the Labour controllers of Birmingham city council: first, misuse; and, secondly, misappropriation. I propose to deal with each separately. On the first issue, on 12 January—just over two months ago—I raised at Prime Minister's Question Time the case of Nancy Johnson, who was paid £42,000 per annum to be head of the women's unit in Birmingham. At that time, an investigation had apparently gone on into Ms Johnson's conduct in that office, and I naturally assumed that she had been suspended pending the outcome of the inquiry. After all, if a doctor, or anyone else in any public office, is accused of misbehaviour, he or she is removed to prevent that person from doing further damage while an inquiry is pending—

Mr. Frank Dobson: Except Tory Members who take £1,000 per question.

Dame Jill Knight: I shall not take ridiculous interventions, especially from a Front-Bench Member. If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can do, I shall challenge him on that one.
Although anyone else would have been suspended because of allegations of continued misconduct, Ms Johnson was allowed to continue in post at £42,000 per annum. However, the investigation into her conduct must have found that something was wrong, for the council paid her £11,000 to shut up and go away. We do not know what the inquiry found, because all its findings were kept totally secret and, although the Conservative leader of the council and the Conservative group on the council asked for details of the investigation, none was given.
What we do know is that that woman was also chairman of the Harambee housing association, which I dare say she looked on as another nice little earner because it lost £250,000 of ratepayers' money—[Interruption.] It is certainly public money. There is no question about that.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I will not. [HoN. MEMBERS: "The hon. Lady is wrong."] I am most certainly not wrong to say that the Harambee housing association lost £250,000 of ratepayers' money. [Interruption.] If the Opposition seriously suggest that it does not matter if someone wastes public money but matters only if someone wastes council money, that is an extraordinary allegation to make.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The subject of this debate is clearly listed as "Local government in Birmingham". May I therefore have a ruling from you on whether the hon. Lady or, for that matter, other hon. Members, can raise issues that are in no way related to local government spending, as was the point which she just raised?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened attentively, he would have recognised that, so far, the hon. Lady has been entirely in order.

Mr. Rooker: No, she has not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman might reflect that I spent a great many years in local government.

Dame Jill Knight: Ms Johnson appears to be a friendly soul, and she got her friends in on the act, including one who already worked full time as head of a council-run children's home in the city. That woman claimed—she was paid without a murmur—that she was working 416 hours a month, or 104 hours a week. I presume that that was 52 hours a week for the Harambee housing association and 52 hours a week for the city council-run home. She was paid without a murmur out of the public purse for working 416 hours a month when she could not possibly have been working anything like that.
Another Harambee worker under Ms Johnson's chairmanship asked for and received £500 from the council for "black women's therapy and social action". Normally, when one receives money from the council for such causes, one must fill in a grant application form, which must be sanctioned by responsible persons. No grant application form was ever filled in or sanctioned. The money was apparently paid over with no inquiries. Precisely how it was spent is a mystery.
Apart from all that money disappearing without visible trace, I maintain that setting up a women's unit is a misuse of ratepayers' money. After all, why not have a men's unit as well? Otherwise, is that not in contravention of sex discrimination legislation? Birmingham women's unit is currently putting on an international women's festival, and I have the programme before me. Even the Birmingham Evening Mail, which is certainly not anti-Labour—[Interruption.] It is certainly not—[HON. MEMBERS: "But Fowler is its chairman."] Now who is raising matters outside the subject of the debate? My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)is more than capable of answering for himself, if he is given the opportunity to do so.
Last week, the local paper had a headline saying that it is "hard not to knock" the women's festival. It can say that again. The unit spent some £500,000 per annum of


Government grant, which should go to the people of Birmingham. Let us look at the festival programme and see what can be done under such a great effort subsidised by ratepayers. People can go to a tea dance—that would be fun. I have nothing against tea dances, except when they are subsidised by the city council. I am sure that, if my hon. Friends attended such an event, they would be happy to pay the full price, and would not ask the ratepayers to foot the bill.
Alternatively, senior citizens can attend a nostalgia afternoon at the Grand hotel with tea and cakes. That will cost £2 as part of the subsidised women's festival; otherwise, it will cost double that amount. One can go sequence dancing for £1.50. There are still more goodies to come. People can join a domestic violence residents club. I do not know whether that means that one can go along and learn how to commit domestic violence; the programme does not explain what it is about. [Interruption.] You are scared to death—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Chair is prepared to hear comments like the one that came from the Opposition Front Bench just then. I would be grateful if Front Benchers would remain quiet, or else ask to intervene in the proper way.

Dame Jill Knight: One can learn Egyptian dancing or—this is a good one—explore escape through the use of soundbeam. Does that not sound intriguing? One can investigate lesbianism, undergo assertiveness training—I bet Ms Johnson did not need any assertiveness training—or listen to dialogues with seven mad women. All those activities are in the women's festival programme.
The festival does investigate a few—but not many—useful subjects. However, if one wants to learn how to succeed in business or about self-defence or Japanese porcelain, one should not expect to do so using ratepayers' money, thus depriving others of much-needed council services. Many of my constituents live in houses and flats where water runs down the walls, the doors do not fit and the windows let in the rain.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I will not give way. Plenty of people wish to speak in the debate, and no doubt they will do so.
Many of my constituents face difficulties in their council homes. I listen to them talk about their troubles and I contact the council. Sometimes the repairs are done and the officials try to be helpful. They explain about the cuts in council funding. It is no wonder that its funding has been cut when the council funds rubbish like the women's festival.
What am I supposed to say to an 80-year-old woman who cannot get a home help to keep her house clean—"Never mind, dear, why don't you let the house go hang and nip across to the Ladywood arts and leisure centre, to hear a talk about Islam in Africa"? That little gem from the festival programme will not help that lady to get her house clean.
Swimming baths are being closed in Birmingham because it is alleged that not enough Government money is allocated to that city. Those baths are being closed while

money is being wasted. Library opening hours are being reduced, creating serious problems for many Birmingham people who have always used those library facilities. Worst of all, some homes in Birmingham still do not have indoor lavatories. I think that it is absolutely scandalous that money is being wasted on a women's festival when people still have to go down the garden path to the lavatory at night in the snow and the rain. That is a disgrace.

Mr. John Spellar: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No, I will not give way to any hon. Members. I have too many questions and answers myself, and I hope that there will be plenty of time for other hon. Members to put their oar in.
There cannot be any excuse for spending money on activities like the women's festival while people still do not have indoor lavatories. I am astonished that any hon. Member would defend that position.
So scandalous is Labour's misuse of grant money that the national papers are now sitting up and taking notice. One reported that a so-called Muslim unemployment project has pocketed £41,000 of ratepayers' money. That project did not provide any jobs, although it has been suggested that it certainly secured Labour votes. No accounts from the project were ever published, despite the fact that a large amount of money was spent. The House should not be surprised about that, because the project treasurer cannot read or write. He is totally illiterate in his own language, which is not English. I think that it is surprising to expect someone who cannot read or write to produce proper treasurer's reports.
One cannot help suspecting that he was put into that position as a patsy. Two Labour councillors, Mohammed Azam and Haider Zaman, seem to have masterminded the project, although they did not issue any treasurer's reports. A third Labour councillor, Ghazanfar Khan, was originally involved. He was forced to resign in a hurry after his planning application for a curry house in a residential area passed through the council on a whipped Labour vote.
The minority resource centre lost £13,000 per annum. Its secretary was Councillor Abdul Malik and the main worker at the centre was the councillor's nephew. I am not sure what that organisation does, but it is linked with the Bangladeshi Workers Association—which receives £24,000 per annum—through Councillor Malik. Neither organisation has any idea where that money has gone. A press report dealing with the matter said that an "unquantifiable amount of money has disappeared". Some of the vanishing thousands may have been spent within the letter of the law, but I would be very surprised if they were spent within the spirit of the law.
How can it be ethical for another Labour councillor, Councillor Rabani, to receive a grant of £52,000 to repair his house? It would cost a lot less than that to deal with damp in the homes of my constituents. Councillor Chauhan has received £11,000 to repair his house. There is nothing like ensuring undying allegiance to the Labour party with a good hefty cheque. It must be wrong to buy votes using taxpayers' money. It is pretty sleazy to buy votes with one's own money; it is very sleazy to buy them with public money.
There have been a number of press reports about the allegations, the latest of which involved a trade union centre in Birmingham which has received £1 million in


ratepayers' money since 1986. Chunks of that money were apparently diverted to a hard left campaigning organisation through Councillor Mick Rice, who was able to channel cash from the former organisation to the latter because he was a member of both organisations. All that now remains of that £1 million expenditure is a few worn desks, chairs and filing cabinets—and a few secured Labour votes.
Councillor Mick Rice also seems to be extremely influential. A document which came into my hands only this morning gives chapter and verse of how moderate trade union activity has been sabotaged by a hard left group. According to the document, there has been serious misappropriation of local authority funds in order to aid that effort. It says that work has been commissioned fraudulently.
In fact, the entire document is an appalling catalogue of deceit. I am advised that Councillor Rice strongly opposed calls for any investigation of what had gone on, and claimed that he could ensure that Councillor Theresa Stewart, who is the head of the Labour group on the Birmingham city council, would be amenable to blocking any such inquiry. No such inquiry has taken place. I believe that my charge of misappropriation stands.
Finally, also under that head, I want to touch on the extremely unequal way in which money allocated by the Government to Birmingham is distributed in what certainly appears to be a blatant attempt to buy votes. Out of 841 grants to voluntary bodies, the lion's share goes to those parts of Birmingham that elect Labour councillors and Members of Parliament: Aston, Handsworth, Nechells, Small Heath, Soho, Sparkbrook and Sparkhill with Ladywood at the top of the list, receiving more than 100 grants totalling some £7 million. My constituency is only just across the road from Ladywood.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Jill Knight: No.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.

Dame Jill Knight: The allegations that I make are far too serious to commit to memory. I have chapter and verse for all of them, and none of the barracking and bad behaviour of the Opposition will shut me up.
In Ladywood, more than 100 grants have been made, totalling £7 million. My constituency has received seven in Harborne, which is just across the road from Ladywood and two in Quinton. If anyone thinks that there is no deprivation in parts of my constituency, they are wrong. There are areas of Quinton where there is serious deprivation. There have been only two grants to the areas that need help in my patch. There are more one-parent families in Quinton than in any other part of Birmingham. I hope that all those allegations will be properly investigated by the Nolan committee.
Birmingham is a great city; it is a proud and honourable city. Its citizens deserve better than this.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J.

Knight) has raised this debate not out of concern for the people of Birmingham but out of concern for the Birmingham Conservative councillors, who were almost wiped out in the last local election.

Dame Jill Knight: Nonsense.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the hon. Lady intend to persist in behaving like this, or will she behave with the dignity appropriate to her years?
The hon. Lady has shown concern for the councillors of Birmingham, who were virtually wiped out at the last municipal election. What we have seen is a re-run, in an even sillier version, of the party political broadcast that Conservative central office—in its folly—produced before the last municipal elections. The allegations have displayed the same triviality. Indeed, there was a moment when I thought that we were going to hear yet again about the horrendous scandal of the gravedigger discovered to be in possession of a mobile telephone.
I know that the hon. Lady is not in a mood to answer questions, but it would be interesting if she could tell us two things. What percentage of the total budget—the budget which she told us raised more than £1 billion from the electors of Birmingham£do the awful misexpenditures that she has reported represent? How many decimal places are required to discover the percentage of funds about which, in her trivial way, the hon. Lady has chosen to speak today? I am sure that she will not give us the figure, so let me ask her two other questions.
First, the hon. Lady spoke in the most florid language about allegations of misappropriation of funds and related matters. Had it not been a rather feeble political exercise, the most appropriate way for her to proceed as a Member of Parliament for the city would have been to report the allegations one by one to the district auditor. How many has she reported?

Dame Jill Knight: I am waiting for Nolan. This is much too serious for anything but a totally independent top-level inquiry.

Mr. Hattersley: We shall look forward to seeing whether Nolan actually reports explicitly on the various groups within the City of Birmingham, and we shall look forward to seeing why the hon. Lady does not regard the district auditor as an independent arbiter in these matters.
There is a further series of allegations which the hon. Lady was wise enough not to raise. They appeared on the front page of the Observer, and I shall touch on them for constituency reasons. As soon as the allegations appeared—they contained not the slightest suggestion of illegality or of money being illegally used, but only the suggestion of political rather than any other impropriety—the leader of Birmingham council, on her own initiative, referred the matter to the district auditor.
An interesting comparison can be drawn with the ex-leader of Westminster city council who—as the woman described as intentionally gerrymandering and using public funds to obtain votes for the Tory party—was also involved with the district auditor. The hon. Member for Edgbaston now appears to be concentrating on her correspondence. Which council leader would she prefer to work with—the one who, as soon as there is the faintest whiff of scandal, chooses—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a general conviction that


hon. Members do not throw accusations across the House. If my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) is responding to a note from the Official Report, the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his last remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave the procedure of the Chamber in the hands of the Chair.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall wait for the hon. Lady to pass her envelope along and then ask again which council leader would she prefer to work with—the one who, of her own volition, at the faintest whiff of scandal referred the whole matter to the district auditor, or the leader of the Westminster Tory flagship borough, who is herself the subject of a district auditor's inquiry?

Dame Jill Knight: My impression is that the debate concerns Birmingham city council and nothing else.

Mr. Rooker: You have failed in your duty.

Dame Jill Knight: I never fail in my duty.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Lady might at least have the grace to repeat what I have just said—that the behaviour of the leader of Birmingham city council in this particular was admirable in every detail and should be applauded and supported by Members of Parliament who wish to ensure that corruption does not besmirch the city.
I wish to say a few words about the allegations in the Observer newspaper some weeks ago. It suggested that nothing illegal had been done, but it was concerned with how grants for improving derelict property were being obtained. The allegation was that the council—rightly but vaguely, in my view—tried to bring some order out of the chaos which had been caused by the Tory party in two ways: first, by not allocating enough money for improvements and, secondly, by inventing a crazy system for the allocation of the grants. The council failed to do that, and there were arguments about how some people should obtain the full rights to which they were entitled under the law. It was that and no more.
There is a crisis about housing improvement grants in Birmingham, but it is a crisis which has been brought about because there is so much decrepit property and so little Government assistance in putting that decrepit property right. As the hon. Lady knows, the leader of Birmingham council invited all the Conservative councillors—and, indeed, councillors of every political persuasion—to join a delegation to the Department of the Environment to ask for more money to make housing in Birmingham not right but better.
The hon. Lady spoke with what she regards as eloquence about housing conditions in her constituency. I understand that the leader of the council is to invite all the city Members of Parliament to see the Secretary of State for the Environment to see whether more money can be obtained under the housing investment programme. Will the hon. Lady come with us to lobby the Secretary of State for the Environment for more HIP money for Birmingham?

Dame Jill Knight: I do not think that it is a particularly good idea to conduct a dialogue across the Floor of the House, as it may take time from other hon. Members who

wish to speak. Nevertheless, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's question. As I have repeatedly made clear today, if large amounts were not wasted on ridiculous nonsense, there would be plenty of money available to meet Birmingham's needs.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall continue to give way to the hon. Lady as often as she wishes me to. The more she says, the more she demonstrates that she is interested only in the politics, not in the city. She has not been able to tell us how much money has been wasted, or how many houses could have been improved if there had been a total saving. She has not been able to tell us how many grants would have been extended. All she has managed to do is to produce the usual smears and allegations—generally unsubstantiated, and certainly unquantified.
This has been a year of extraordinary municipal achievement for Birmingham. But for a reduction of nearly £20 million in Government grant, the citizens of Birmingham would probably pay less for their municipal services next year than they paid last year. Despite a year of stringency—forced on the council by an arbitrarily low cap, and by cuts in grants which have always been small—the city has been perhaps uniquely successful in improving its education provision. Three weeks ago, when I last spoke in the House, the Secretary of State for Education preached a sermon to local councils, saying that, even in these desperate days they should find more money for education, fund the teachers' pay increase, extend coverage in the classrooms and preserve education standards. Birmingham has done exactly that.
This morning—purely by coincidence—the Joseph Chamberlain college, which stands between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Edgbaston, wrote to me about some specific problems. The letter began by congratulating Birmingham city council on increasing the number of teachers despite the year's financial problems. This year Birmingham will have more than 500 extra teachers. It is taking precisely the action that the Government have told education authorities that they should take despite the difficulties that they are experiencing.
Why, when talking about Birmingham, does the peripatetic hon. Member for Edgbaston—she is now moving gaily from seat to seat—choose to concentrate on matters attracting trivial criticism rather than on matters which merit legitimate and major congratulation?
I see that the chairman of the group which owns the Birmingham Evening Mail is with us today. The last time he was invited to join a parliamentary delegation, he failed to do so—even though his own paper had organised the event, the purpose of which was to raise the issues of press freedom and the levying of value added tax on newspapers. He was too busy to go to Downing street with the other Birmingham Members of Parliament. I hope that in one of its editorials his paper will consider the following proposition: is increasing education spending in a year of unique stringency, and increasing the number of schoolteachers by more than 500, a virtue which more than outweighs the creation of a class in which elderly ladies can be taught to dance?
I believe that the people of Birmingham will know what is important in their city's municipal government, and I think that they will realise that the council has done a good


job this year. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edgbaston, who—in her lack of wisdom—has enabled my hon. Friends and me to put some of the real facts on record.

Sir Norman Fowler: The defence advanced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was very unconvincing, and at times entered the realms of indescribable pomposity. When he addressed the issue at all, he seemed to be saying that only a small amount of public money was at stake, that the whole issue was trivial and that we should therefore consider other factors. The House should not accept that argument.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) on raising this issue. It should be made clear that the issue is the misuse of public funds.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Alleged.

Sir Norman Fowler: The alleged misuse of public funds—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
There are other occasions on which we can debate the issues of government and local government, and wider issues. This morning we are discussing a much more specific question: whether funds provided by the public—the taxpayer—have been properly used. I intend to concentrate on the events of the past few weeks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has provided a long list relating to a long period. I shall deal in particular with charges that have been made about the misuse of housing renewal grants, for a specific reason.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook accused us of seeking to make party political capital. The unique feature of the cases that have been raised is that they were not raised by Tory Members of Parliament or by the so-called Tory press, and they certainly were not manufactured by Midland Independent Newspapers. I declare an interest as non-executive chairman of the group—when we last debated matters of this kind, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made something of that.
The charges relating to renewal grants were made by a Labour Member of Parliament, supported by at least some Labour councillors, and have been reported in the national press by a newspaper which supports the Labour party. They were made by Labour against Labour. Let us be clear about this: it is not a Tory conspiracy—the whistle was blown by Labour supporters.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who used to be deputy leader of the Labour party, did not dwell on an even more extraordinary fact: as a direct result of those charges, no fewer than four Labour constituency parties have been suspended. A party investigation is taking place and Labour's public relations machine has stressed at every stage how seriously it takes the affair.

Mr. David Rendel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
One can imagine the outcry that would have resulted if a single Conservative association in Birmingham—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Westminster?"] I shall deal with Westminster shortly. In this instance, four Labour

associations have been suspended. As Opposition Members well know, they would be expressing outrage if Conservative associations were involved, and their Front Bench would already be apportioning blame. Let me tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is my next-door neighbour in the area, that I certainly do not intend to apportion blame, for reasons that I shall come to. Suffice it to say that I can think of no other recent occasion on which four associations have been suspended as a result of such charges.
Let us consider the history of those charges. On 9 February, in an Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—who is present in the Chamber—raised the issue of housing renewal in Birmingham. He criticised the operation of the grants, and went on to say specifically:
Regrettably, the operation of the mandatory grant system of the renovation grants allows it to be used for the purposes of political patronage in Birmingham."—[Official Report, 9 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 558.]
I respect the hon. Member for Perry Barr for setting out his views in that way.
A couple of weeks later, on Sunday 26 February, the Observer took up the story. Whatever Opposition Members may feel about other papers, I do not believe that they would regard that as a Conservative supporting newspaper—[Interruption] Some Opposition Members appear to have a persecution complex. That paper said:
Inquiries by The Observer have revealed that, in some key inner-city wards, half of all Treasury-funded slum housing renovation grants are being directed to Labour Party members whose votes could help ambitious politicians to secure their local power base.
That report was carried under the headline:
Labour in £2 million sleaze enquiry".
Once again, the hon. Member for Perry Barr was asked for his comments. According to the Observer, he said that there appeared to be a prima facie breach of local government corruption laws and that the matter should be referred to the police. I remind the House that those were the words of a respected Labour Member of Parliament who represents Birmingham. A few days later, The Guardian reported that the four constituency associations involved—Small Heath, Ladywood, Sparkbrook and Perry Barr—were being suspended. The inquiry by Peter Coleman, the Labour organisation director, would
examine allegations that rival candidates for the Sparkbrook seat, to be vacated
by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook,
have been soliciting support by giving advice on how to jump the council queue for housing".
I emphasis that all these allegations were made in the past few weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston dealt with allegations going back much further than that. I do not intend to try to apportion guilt at this stage. Those who have been accused are entitled to put the case for their defence, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Erdington for raising that issue. I hope that when allegations are made against Conservative councils the Labour party will adopt the same attitude, although I fear that it has not always done so.
I have a constituency point to make in this regard. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr knows, I thought that he was wrong to name my constituent, Mr. John


Woodcock, in this affair, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has now withdrawn the charges against him.

Mr. Rooker: I welcome the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has begun to set out his arguments. The hon. Member for Edgbaston raised many issues from the past, three of which affected my constituency and all three of which I reported to the appropriate authorities some years ago.
In my speech of 9 February I was unfair to Mr. Woodcock. I apologise to him here and now. I believe that he operated as a professional person, wholly innocent of any of the alleged scams. He is involved in the sense that he is a professional agent carrying out the work, but it was wrong of me to say that he touted for business. I have met him since and he has told me that he agreed with 97 per cent. of my speech—he agrees with the idea of urban renewal carried out on an area basis and not pepper-potted.
The Observer contacted me on the Saturday before it published the two articles and read them out to me. The paper confirmed that it, too, had named Woodcock, two firms of solicitors and two agents in the articles. Having heard what was read out to me, I told the newspaper that I did not think it fair or right to include Woodcock's name and that it was not relevant. The newspaper did not include it, and I wrote to Mr. Woodcock explaining that the articles had been read to me on the Saturday, that that was when I gave out the comment about the police, and that I had said that I did not think that his name should be used.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has made a fair statement, for_ which my constituent will also be grateful.
Only one issue is at stake in this debate: is there a case to answer in respect of the allegations that I have set out? If there is, how should it be investigated? By setting up their own inquiries the Labour party and the city council have provided their own reply. Self-evidently, they believe that there is a case to be answered and a case which needs investigation.
My fundamental point for the Secretary of State is that the public will not be satisfied with a Labour party investigation or an internal council investigation: they must know that the charges will be thoroughly, independently and fiercely investigated. There must be no cover-up and no smokescreen—

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Sir Norman Fowler: I am just finishing.
That is why I want an assurance from the Secretary of State today that when the district auditor investigates this case—as he surely will, because it has been referred to him—he will be given all the necessary powers and resources to conduct a thorough and independent investigation of what are, after all, very serious allegations involving the misuse of public money.
Above all, the investigation must be carried out speedily. That is the message that should go out—dare I say it—from both sides of the House. We must get to the bottom of this affair at the earliest opportunity. Until we do, I am not prepared to talk about guilt. I only hope that when the

Conservative party is the subject of similar allegations the Labour party will adopt the same policy. A year or two from now the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will no longer be with us, but nothing that I have heard him say in recent years leads me to the conclusion that he would ever support such a policy himself.

Mr. Roger Godsiff: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for dealing at some length with the article in The Observer of 26 February. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for raising the issue.
Before I respond to the fabrications in that article, I should like to make one further point. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield called for an independent inquiry. Two days after the article about Labour being involved in a £2 million sleaze inquiry appeared, I referred the whole matter to the chief constable. I also took the trouble to write to the Home Secretary, in the following terms:
I am sure you will conclude that the allegations have some similarity to those relating to the highly publicised case involving Westminster city council, and it is obviously of the utmost importance that these matters are properly investigated. If it is found that any form of corruption has occurred, then those responsible should face the law.
The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Home Secretary has not even bothered to reply.
However, the chief constable did reply. He said, "Thank you, Mr. Godsiff, but from a preliminary look I cannot see that there are any allegations that need to be investigated." I regret that the chief constable did not undertake an investigation, and particularly regret the fact that the Home Secretary was not prepared to use his good offices with the chief constable to encourage an investigation. I believe that the Home Secretary was not particularly interested.
The article that appeared in The Observer on 26 February was written by Mr. Dean Nelson—to whom I shall return later—using racy terminology. It began:
Party members accused of using taxpayers' cash to 'buy' safe Labour House of Commons seat.
It continued:
Inquiries by The Observer have revealed that in some key inner city wards, half of all Treasury-funded slum housing renovation grants are being directed to Labour Party members … It was privately disclosed that between a third and a half of all applicants in some wards were Labour Party members.
One has to read the article a second and third time, because it is difficult to nail down the allegations. There are many references to "an informed source"—
a senior city councillor who does not wish to be named
and "a spokesperson" but no one making the allegations is named.
The article continues:
The area of greatest concern is the Small Heath ward where more than 50 per cent of those awarded grants are party members. The majority of these applicants were presented by Roger Godsiff … and his local membership secretary and agent, Gulbahar Khan, one of the city council's most influential members.
When I read that on Monday, I wrote to Dr. Alan Elkin, assistant director of the city's urban renewal programme. He knows all the facts and figures—he provides them to the politicians. I asked Dr. Elkin how many valid housing


renovation grant applications received by the council related to properties in the Small Heath constituency. He answered quickly: one. He added that five other applications had been approved and that four more were valid. The Observer article stated that the area of greatest concern was Small Heath, where more than 50 per cent. of grants awarded had gone to Labour party members.
I pressed Dr. Elkin for further information. I asked whether one particular application had been made by the householder or by someone on his behalf, and whether any of the other nine applications had come through myself or my personal assistant, Councillor Khan. Again, Dr Elkin replied quickly:
The owner of the property where works have been completed and grants paid made an application privately without professional assistance. However, I am not able to divulge the address without the owner's approval. The file and records have been checked and I can confirm that no applications have been submitted via yourself or Councillor Khan.
The article said that the area of greatest concern was Small Heath, where more than 50 per cent. of grants given related to Labour party members.
The Observer article further stated:
Charles Road, Small Heath, Birmingham. This is the power base of Labour MP Roger Godsiff. It is also the home of his right-hand man, Gulbahar Khan.
That is absolutely right: it is my power base, but every hon. Member has a power base. The residents of Charles road have been extremely supportive of me, for which I am most grateful. It is one of the longest residential roads in Birmingham, containing 322 houses. Of those, 39 are occupied by members of the Labour party. I thought the figure would be much higher, and it should be.
The Observer stated:
An internal Labour Party inquiry has led to allegations that Charles Road is at the heart of the scandal.
I checked with my party's regional secretary only this week, and she confirmed that no investigation has been authorised or undertaken. More to the point, the chairman of the party's organisation committee has never authorised an investigation. One begins to see that Mr. Dean Nelson's article is based not on fact but fabrications.
I will not read the whole article to the House, but it also implied that another councillor, Raghib Ahsan, had done something improper. That councillor is no friend of mine, but he was doing what he thought was in the best interests of his electorate. He is entitled not to be smeared over the front page of The Observer, as I was.

Mr. John Butcher: The hon. Gentleman knows that a number of people in Birmingham are concerned about queue jumping and potential abuse of section 82 procedures. Does he, from his experience of Small Heath ward, know whether section 82 has been used in a partial manner, with the result that people who have been in the queue for a long time have been leapfrogged by people who have not?

Mr. Godsiff: Section 82 relates to council housing, but the majority of Small Heath residents live in owner-occupied properties, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware of the figures for the Nechells or Aston wards.
Before reading The Observer article, I had never heard of Dean Nelson. Frankly, having read it, I do not want to hear of him again. However, this was not the first time that Mr. Nelson had written scandal articles. In 1990 and

1991, he wrote in The Independent about matters relating to local authorities in north Wales. In another article, Mr. Nelson made allegations about a former police officer, who sued The Independent, The Observer, Harlech Television and Private Eye, and was awarded £350,000 damages. At the end of that case, and after giving the matter serious study, Mr. Justice Drake—who is not given to using flowery language—referred to Mr. Nelson's journalistic methods as "plain crookery".
Birmingham has a problem with preserving its housing stock. Many properties in the city are unfit for habitation, and the money available to deal with the stock has been cut dramatically, from £60 million 10 years ago to less than £20 million. That problem of resources should concern all hon. Members representing Birmingham constituencies. Rightly or wrongly, the council decided, not illegally, to base its grants system on queuing and inquiry forms.
The forms had been completed by 9,500 people, but they have no legal standing whatever and if the system ended tomorrow those people would not have a legal leg to stand on. The queuing system is based on a cut-off date of July 1991, which is nearly four years ago. More to the point, the queuing system takes no account whatever of prioritisation. Those who applied after July 1991 and had minor problems of dampness in their properties went on the queuing list, as did those who applied after July 1991 and had no roof, dampness rising from the floor to the ceiling, every piece of wood riddled with woodworm and no hot water. As I have said, there is no prioritisation.
Some 18 months ago, I decided that I was no longer prepared to operate that system. I explained to the leader of the council that, in future when people came to see me, I would tell them the council's policy and its problems. I said that I would explain about the cut-off date and the queuing system. However, I said that, if any constituent said, "Please Mr. Godsiff, help me to get my urban renewal work carried out", I did not intend to deny that person his legal entitlement to know his rights. That is what I did, that is what I shall continue to do, and I make no apology for doing it.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for mentioning John Woodcock. Since I spoke to the leader of the council, I took care to ensure that
anybody I passed on went to Mr. John Woodcock, a person of integrity and competence, who would deal properly with applications and would not rip people off. I took the trouble to interview him, not on my own but with another Birmingham Member, to ascertain that he was a person of integrity and competence. Everybody I have referred to him has spoken highly of the way in which he dealt with these matters.
I hold 11 advice bureau surgeries a month in my constituency and I have a full-time advice centre which is open five days a week. A huge number of people come to see me, many of them with urban renewal problems. My constituents are among the most disadvantaged in the country. I say with great respect that they are not middle-class people who know the law. They do not know the law, and they certainly do not know their entitlements. When they come to me as their Member of Parliament, they come to seek help, and many of them do not even have English as their first language.
I do not make the slightest apology in the House or anywhere else for helping my constituents to get their legal entitlements, because that is their right. I am sorry


if, by doing that, I offend some people on the city council because it causes problems with their system. I will join those people in making representations to the Government for more resources, because that is what it is all about.
I suggested to the leader of the council that the 9,500 inquiry forms should be placed in front of the Secretary of State, and that he should be asked what to do with them. The 1989 Act is his legislation, and it is up to him to make sure that resources are available. I say again that my constituents are entitled to advice, and that I shall continue to give it when they come to see me. That advice will be given freely by me, irrespective of race, religion or colour.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The Labour party believes that wrongdoing in local or central Government or anywhere else should be rooted out without fear or favour. In local government, it should be rooted out whether it occurs in Labour, Tory or Liberal councils. We condemn wrongdoing wherever it occurs, but, unlike the Tory party, we also take action.
In Birmingham, charges of wrongdoing have arisen in connection with renovation grants. The immediate response to that from the Labour leader of the council was to call for a report from the district auditor. In an immediate response to the first article in The Observer, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) referred the matter to the police, as he has explained. He also referred it to the Home Secretary. In so far as there were charges relating to what might be wrongful actions within the Labour party, the party immediately announced a thorough investigation and closed four of the local branches to make sure that, if anything wrong had been done, it did not affect any selection or election that might be proceeding. That was right.
As a result of Labour action—not action by anyone else—there is an investigation by the district auditor, some sort of investigation by the police and an investigation by the Labour party. That is all at the instigation of the Labour party, and it was done without fear of favour. That is similar to the approach that we have adopted in Lambeth, Liverpool and other places. I contrast that with the record of the Tories when wrongdoing has occurred in Tory councils. When Wandsworth council was found guilty by the district auditor of breaking the law in relation to the homeless and carrying on headlong with its policy of selling council houses when people had nowhere to live, a vice-chairman of the Tory party, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), said on television that he was proud of that council's record—its law-breaking record!
In Westminster, the district auditor has made it clear that he thinks that the homes-for-votes scandal has cost £21 million and that the failure to collect service and repair charges from leaseholders may have cost £31 million. No investigation was instigated by the Tories who were in charge at Westminster: the Tory party in that council has been obstructive at every turn.
No Tory Minister and, to the best of my knowledge, no Tory Member has ever uttered one word of condemnation about Westminster council in relation to these scandals. Far from it: they have continued to defend the council. As

I have said, that is in marked contrast to Labour's attitude to wrongdoing everywhere. Labour does something about it, but the Tories never utter a harsh word against their friends.
I do not know, nor do I think that any hon. Member knows, whether there has been wrongdoing in Birmingham. If there has been, it will be rooted out by Labour; but the issue is used as an excuse to attack the great city of Birmingham and its people. That great city and its ingenious and hard-working people, whose reputation for building and making is legendary throughout the world, have been hard hit by the recession, and the city council has done its desperate best not to take things lying down but to protect the people of that great city, maintain its economic status and give it an economic future.
The council has not always got it right—none of us ever does—but it has tried, and its partnership approach with local businesses and communities has been a substantial success, promoting job retention and creation. It has been criticised by the Tories in Birmingham and nationally at every turn. When the council built the international convention centre, it was described as a waste of money by local Tories—although not by all of them, because some supported it. It was certainly described as such by Tory Ministers, who accused Birmingham city council of squandering money on the centre.
Then what did we find? The most famous use that the centre has had to date on a serious matter was when the Prime Minister took the European summit to Birmingham because that great centre was worth showing off. The centre is smart and modern and has all the necessary facilities to host such an important conference. Not a penny of Government money went into it, and the Prime Minister preened himself and pranced around trying to take credit for it. I think that the centre was used last year for the CBI conference, and it will be used by the CBI again this year.
Lo and behold, among the Tory hypocrites the Tory party central council is to meet there at the end of this month. I wonder whether it will put up on one of those screens which it is so good at using a notice stating, "We condemned this place and the staff, and now we are proud to make use of it."
There have been complaints—they have been made time and again—about the city's efforts to renew the city centre and to make it a smart place of which the people of Birmingham and, indeed, Britain can be proud. It has succeeded. There has been a massive improvement in the city centre. Indeed, the Minister of State, Department of Employment visited the city centre this week and said:
No one visiting the City of Birmingham can fail to be impressed by the change and developments in the city centre—surely one of the urban regeneration success stories of recent years.
The hon. Lady was merely following on from what the President of the Board of Trade had said last week, when he endorsed the city's regeneration efforts and held them up as a model of civic activity to promote regeneration.
However, all that the Government do is talk about renovation grants. It is absolutely typical of them—they will the end but do not will the means. They have given people a statutory right to renovation grants, but they have not provided the money to meet that right. The spending on renovation grants in the whole of Britain in 1984 was £1.5 billion; it was down to less than £500 million when


the last annual figures were produced. In 1984., some 214,000 grants were made, but in the last year for which the full figures are available the number had been reduced to just 34,000. Councils have been forced to institute queuing systems. That may not be lawful, but it is the only thing that they can do when they are faced by people with a statutory right but have not been provided with the Government funds to meet that.
In the very last Budget, the Government lopped a further £57 million off the private sector renovation grant scheme. Birmingham was caught in a dilemma not of its or Labour's making but of the Tory Government's making. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the chairman of the local newspaper group, asked who jumped the queue. The people of Birmingham are not really concerned about who jumped the queue; they are bothered about the people who created the queue in the first place. That needs to be sorted out.
If the city of Birmingham is to discharge its tasks, it faces massive problems in trying to serve almost 1 million people. It needs Government help to provide services. In the Government's list of deprived places in Britain, Birmingham comes 21st. Hon. Members might think that is fair and reasonable, but it should be compared with places that are higher up the list. For example, Westminster is fourth on the list; Kensington and Chelsea is 11th; the City of London—Barings notwithstanding, God help us—is 19th, before the great city of Birmingham. As a result, Birmingham's grant has been cut this year and it has been forced to increase its council tax and cut services. Consequently, the council tax payers of Birmingham, like the council tax payers in most other parts of the country, will he paying more and getting less because of the unfair distribution of grants.
If Birmingham city council had received as much financial help from the Government this year as Westminster received, it would not have had to collect any council tax. Indeed, if it had received the same level of grant as Westminster, it would have paid out an average rebate of £230 to every householder in Birmingham. That shows the unfairness of the system that the Government operate. It is a racket, and the system is rigged in favour of the Government's friends. Of course, the Tories do not regard the people of Birmingham as their friends.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State will roll it out again in his speech, but we are bound to hear the Tories say during the local government elections that Birmingham has a bigger debt than Albania. So it has. Let us compare Birmingham with Albania. Birmingham has better houses than Albania. Birmingham has better schools than Albania. Birmingham has better roads than Albania. Birmingham has better libraries than Albania. The reason for that is that Birmingham has invested in houses, schools, roads and libraries. To do that, and like anyone else, it had to take out a mortgage and then pay it back. That is why Birmingham has debt. The point is that people were prepared to lend money to Birmingham, while no one in his right mind would lend money to Albania. That is what Birmingham has done, and it has done it with the support of the people of Birmingham. Year in, year out, the Labour council has won election after election.
The council previously has been accused of neglecting education. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spelled out, there have been massive improvements in education in Birmingham, giving priority to educating the children and

young people of that great city to give them a chance in life and to give the city in 10, 15 or 20 years' time a chance in Britain and in the world.
I want again to emphasise the unfairness of the distribution system. If Birmingham's education grant had been as big as Westminster's in relation to the population, next year every primary school in Birmingham could have had two extra teachers and every 11-to-18 school could have had 20 extra teachers, without raising a penny on the council tax. That is a further illustration of the unfairness of the system.
I do not have time to spell out all the achievements of the city council. It has its faults—don't we all? However, it is trying hard in difficult circumstances. We have to ask, why are we having this debate? It is part of a concerted attack by the Tories on Birmingham. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield can confirm, there was a meeting last week, to which he was invited by the chairman of the Tory party, to discuss what the Tories could do in their campaign against Birmingham—[Interruption.] The Chief Whip was there. We could quote from conversations in the Corridors; people sometimes talk too loudly, and other people listen.
The Tories are launching their local government campaign today and they are starting it, as they did last year, by suggesting that Birmingham and the people of Birmingham are sleazy and are stupid for voting Labour. The fact is that the people of Birmingham know who is good for their city. They have solidly voted Labour for many years, and I am confident that they will do so again. The Tories' attempt to do down the city of Birmingham and its people will backfire. I am convinced that it will rebound on them, just as it did at this time last year.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) again revealed his ignorance of how the local government system works, so I shall remind him. The arrangements for grant are worked out by the Government and the Labour-controlled Association of District Councils, the Labour-controlled Association of County Councils, the Labour-controlled association covering the inner-London area and the outer-London area and the Labour-controlled Association of Metropolitan Councils—none of which says that the system is rigged and none of which agrees with the hon. Gentleman. All of them know the facts; the hon. Gentleman does not. That is the position from which we should start.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) set an example to the House in the way in which he responded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in his comments about his constituent. Throughout the current situation, the hon. Gentleman has been extremely careful to make it clear that when he is talking about grave allegations, he means allegations. He has not sought, in any circumstances, to suggest that anyone is guilty until he is so proven.
The House will recognise the distinction between the hon. Gentleman's approach, which throughout has been honourable, and the approach exemplified by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, I am afraid, fell below even his usual standard in dealing with such a serious issue. The fact is that serious allegations have been made, against a


background in which large sums of money have been put into Birmingham by the Government. On the Stockfield estate, tenants now live in houses owned by their own community association—not run in the appalling way in which Birmingham council had run the estate. The Birmingham Heartlands development corporation is spending £40 million in the inner-city area—the money comes directly from the taxpayer, through Government money, and matched by private money.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I do not have time to give way.
In Birmingham, Castle Vale housing action trust—HATs were opposed tooth and nail by Labour councils up and down the country—received £100 million in Government money. Altogether, that makes about £400 million. That money is going towards the development of Birmingham, a proud city that is doing a great deal, most of it through partnership and direct Government and taxpayers' money.
I am pleased that, only last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) congratulated Birmingham on that partnership during a visit. The partnership has been made possible by the Government. It was set up in the teeth of opposition from the politically and historically neanderthal Birmingham council, which is supported by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is more neanderthal than many.
Increasingly, Birmingham is an improved city where developments are being funded by the taxpayer. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that it has done better on education. That happened because the in-coming Labour authority attacked the outgoing Labour authority for not spending any money on education. In the past year and a bit, it has managed to start to make up for Birmingham city council's appalling education policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that well. Instead of making pompous little remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for—[Interruption.]

Dame Jill Knight: Edgbaston. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Opposition spokesman was given a hearing and the Secretary of State should be given the same.

Mr. Gummer: The Opposition spokesman finds it difficult to take any subject seriously because, if he did so, he would have to do some work to find out the facts. He does not like doing that. He does not know that £400 million has gone into Birmingham, or the facts about Birmingham. His knowledge is merely the anecdotal knowledge that leads him to throw allegations at anyone who does not support the Labour party.
I notice that the Labour party's approach to the Birmingham problem is different from its approach to other problems. If I were to speak about Birmingham as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) did when he was doing the job of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, what would I say? I would say that this was
a case of political corruption and gerrymandering on a scale unknown in modern Britain … There is no parallel … for corruption on this scale.
I would also say that the Labour party in Birmingham
is rotten and amoral to the core, and has abandoned the most basic principles of public morality."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 348.]
That is what I would have said if I were the sort of person who takes an allegation and then makes statements as if a court case had been held and a decision made.
The Labour party is entirely selective in the way in which it deals with these matters. I shall treat the allegations in precisely the same way as I have treated allegations against Lambeth, Westminster, Birmingham and the like. Until the district auditor's case has been proved, any Englishman is innocent until he is proved guilty. [Interruption.] That is not an unimportant matter. The fact that the Labour party can laugh at the basic principle of British justice shows clearly why the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does not understand that the House is let down by the sort of speeches that he and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook have made today.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not think that it mattered if funds had been misappropriated because not a lot of money was involved. In his view, it is only a small baby—that is all—and it does not matter because it is not very much. Conservative Members believe that it does matter, however small it is, and whichever party is guilty. If people are guilty, they should be punished; if they are not guilty, they should be presumed innocent. The House's privileges should not be abused by hon. Members, who could be sued if they made some of their comments outside the House.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way.
The problem is that Birmingham city council has much to be modest about, whereas Birmingham has a great deal to be proud of. After all, the council must explain the £2.5 million spent on women's workshops; not many jobs were created with that money. It must explain the £700,000 spent on the council's newspaper, the £3 million wasted on the social services department's computer system and the £1 million given to a trade union resource centre. It must explain that when it complains that there is not enough money for renovation grants, when it says that it does not have the money that it thinks is necessary for a range of goods, and when Opposition Front-Bench spokesman are giggling away. No doubt it does not matter that £1 million went to the trade union resource centre because, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman for Sparkbrook, it is not very much.
The issue is how we should deal with the allegations. I suggest to right hon. and hon. Opposition Members that they would have done their cause more good by taking a large leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Perry Barr. That would have involved making a clear statement, and then allowing the district auditor to investigate it.
When the district auditor issues his report, I hope that Opposition Members will not assume that what he says means that someone is guilty until the due process of law has been completed. Interestingly, the statement of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about what the auditor had said about Wandsworth implied that the auditor had said that something illegal had occurred. But the auditor said that the matter may be illegal and may have to be considered in the courts. If the hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish between one and the other when flinging his allegations across the House, he should not


be here. He should recognise the damage that he does to the reputation not only of the House, but of the country for fair play and honesty.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman overran his time, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff).
The hon. Member for Small Heath is at the centre of the allegations. It would be wrong for anyone to make allegations about the hon. Gentleman, any of his hon. Friends or the people with whom he works without having extremely good evidence. It is much better to put that evidence in front of the suitable authorities rather than the public arena. He might just feel that his attempt to prove his position point by point would have been more successful if he had looked at the matter differently.
In these circumstances, we should do for ourselves precisely what we have done for other people. If the Labour party had approached this matter in the same way as it has approached other matters when it has attacked Conservative-controlled authorities, it would have gone to town today. We would never have seen the like of it before. What is wrong about the approach of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, apart from the consistent smirk, is that he has appalling double standards. In his view, people who have not been proved guilty are guilty if they are Conservatives and entirely innocent if they are socialists; people must not be smeared if they are socialists, but must he accepted as being absolutely guilty if they are Conservatives. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have let down the House by applying a double standard to an incompetent and useless council about which a number of allegations have been made.
The district auditor will investigate those allegations. I hope that, in the meantime, hon. Members of all parties will continue to adopt an even-handed approach and that we shall hear no more unsubstantiated allegations from Opposition Members about a Conservative council. We stand for the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Land Mines

1 pm

Mr. Harry Cohen: There is a global land mine—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Cohen: There is a global land mine crisis—there are 100 million land mines in 62 countries. The United Nations estimates that 800 people die each month from land mine injuries, and 1 million people have been killed or maimed since 1973. Twenty million refugees want to return to their homes, but are impeded by the problem of uncleared mines.
The purpose of land mines is to bring terror to large populations. They have been sown around key economic installations, electricity and water plants, roads and ports, and civilians are the targets. The United States recently reported that the number of land mines deployed increases by between 500,000 and 1 million each year, and that they are increasingly becoming more sophisticated and hard to detect.
The present generation of land mines are plastic, with only a small metal component, which means that they are difficult to detect with metal-seeking devices. The next generation could well be all plastic, and perhaps undetectable. Mines have increasingly sophisticated electrical fuses that are far more hazardous to find and remove, and have associated booby traps, too. By contrast, mine clearance technology has advanced little since the 1940s.
The United Nations reports 84 de-mining experts killed in Kuwait, and at least 30 in Afghanistan. There are terrific complications in clearing mines in Cambodia, Mozambique and Rwanda. In those counties, mines are often planted in long grass or on the tea plantations, which may have to be taken up blade by blade, bush by bush.
Mine clearance is expensive. The Government give about £8 million towards the process, but that is small potatoes when set against the extent of the problem. In Afghanistan, which has 10 million mines, it would cost
about $17 million a year for six years just to clear the priority community areas. In Cambodia, there are between 5 million and 7 million mines, and our Government helped train the Khmer Rouge to lay them. In Rwanda, Somalia, Mozambique, Bosnia, the Yemen and the Gulf, millions of mines have been laid and are waiting to explode.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, pointed out that mines had gone from being
a tactical battlefield weapon to a theatrewide weapon of mass civilian destruction—a weapon of mass destruction in slow motion.
Land mines need to be treated like chemical weapons, with a total worldwide ban. The United Nations has urged such a ban; the United States instituted a one-year ban or moratorium in October 1992, and extended it in 1993 for an additional three years; the European Parliament passed a resolution in December 1992 demanding a five-year moratorium; and many countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Israel, South Africa, Argentina and Canada, have announced their support for a moratorium. The Government say that they back the UN resolution


for a moratorium, although the Foreign Office resisted it fiercely in private before accepting it. The Government keep demanding and applying exemptions to it.
The inhumane weapons convention of 1981 has a land mines protocol. We signed up to the convention in 1981, but I am told that we ratified it only three weeks ago. In answer to a parliamentary question on 16 January, the Government said that the motivation for ratification was to be able to take part in the September review conference. The implication is that they do not really support the convention but merely want a place at the table.
We have ratified the convention but only by Executive order, not legislation. Legislation would have made it a specific crime to breach the convention, but the Executive order does not. Only military disciplinary procedures will apply. That is not a good example to set other countries.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is in his place. He tabled the excellent early-day motion 727, which refers to the petition recently presented to Downing street by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. It had millions of signatures, and called for an immediate moratorium on the export of all anti-personnel mines, and for the Government to encourage other Governments to follow suit. What have the Government done to encourage other Governments to follow suit?

Mr. David Alton: I congratulate the hon. Member on raising this issue on the Floor of the House. He might like to know that 100 hon. Members of all parties have now signed the early-day motion, and that many people share his belief that far more should be done not only to stop the export of component parts from the United Kingdom but to influence those countries which are the quartermasters, which provide the armaments and anti-personnel mines that are doing so much damage and creating major development problems.
There are 30,000 amputees in Cambodia alone who are the direct casualties of land mines, and I million people around the world have either died or been injured as a result of coming into contact with anti-personnel mines. Many hon. Members of all parties welcome the hon. Gentleman's initiative.

Mr. Cohen: I am grateful for that intervention, and to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that this is an all-party matter.
Also on 16 January, the Government said that no manufacturers were currently supplying United Kingdom armed forces with anti-personnel mines, including self-destruct or self-neutralising ones. If, as the Government claim, none has been exported since 1982, the implication is that no United Kingdom manufacturer is currently making complete land mines. Therefore, the Government could ban manufacture and export from this country. Why have they not done so?
In another place on 16 January, Lord Ingelwood said in effect that the moratorium did not include components for land mines and that exports were considered on a case-by-case basis. What has the Minister to say about components? Are we still making and exporting them?
What about work on land mines done by British companies under licence abroad? What about their research work? Oxfam said that the Government referred only to conventional land mines as part of the moratorium. What about non-conventional mines? The Government should be far more open about their policy. What are they covering up? Why will they not support a complete ban on the manufacture and export of such items?
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) asked a couple of interesting questions about exports. In answer to one, he was told that the Government had established a moratorium on the export of mines that did not have self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms, and that export licenses for components would be considered only in the light of "other established criteria". What are those criteria? The response makes particular reference to the exemption in respect of the self-destruct and self-neutralising mechanisms which the Government have awarded themselves.
In answer to another question about the export of land mines with self-destruct mechanisms, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was told by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement:
The UK has declared an indefinite moratorium on the export from the UK of all anti-personnel land mines which do not have self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms.
That means that the moratorium does not apply to the mines that do have such mechanisms. The reply goes on to refer to the Government's efforts in trying to forestall the transfer of anti-personnel mines. The final sentence is especially interesting:
Any applications for an export licence for a land mine which did possess a self-destruct mechanism would be assessed carefully in the light of these and other factors."—[Official Report, 27 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 445.]
What other factors? The Minister should answer that. That whole sentence implies that permission may still be given for exports of those components. In fact, permission probably would be given if the mines were to have a self-destruct mechanism.
The Government are wrong in trying to set up an exemption for self-destruct and self-neutralising mines. They have said that such mines do not pose great dangers to civilian populations. They do. They still kill and maim innocent civilians, and are costly and dangerous to remove. Other countries do not talk about exemptions for such mines, so why do this Government?
Oxfam has expressed its concern about the Government trying thAT get-out; for example, it asks how long the Government say such mines should be in the ground. That is worth an answer, because the longer the mines are in the ground, the more dangerous they are.
Oxfam also asks whether the Government have researched the failure rates of self-destruct and self-neutralising mechanisms. I can answer that, because the Government answered my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on that subject on 18 January. The answer was none. They have not conducted any research into failure rates, so their assumptions that such mines are not so dangerous is false. The Government are wrong to have distinguished between types of mines and established an exemption for themselves.
The Government have argued that the British Army should have anti-personnel land mine capability, and that the mines are legitimate defence weapons if used in


accordance with the laws of war—clearly marked when laid, and removed afterwards. Incidentally, the Government have not ratified the 1977 additional protocol to the Geneva convention on the laws of war, and they should have, because it is linked to the inhumane weapons convention.
Most wars these days are not conducted according to those traditional laws of wars. Most conflicts are guerrilla wars or internal wars, such as in Bosnia, where anti-personnel mines are not used in any structured or controlled way. As I have said, they are used to destroy morale and instill terror among civilians.
Indeed, it has been reported that some land mines have even been dropped from the air, which shows the indiscriminate nature of their use. British forces have a whole array of sophisticated weapons at hand if operating abroad—we certainly do not want to deploy land mines in this country under any circumstances. It is worth the British forces abandoning their use of this weapon to stop the terror worldwide.
The Government have been obstructive, as was the case at the recent Copenhagen world summit. I bring to the attention of the House a letter I received—presumably other hon. Members also received it—from the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bishop of Brentwood, leaders of the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army and other groups. It says:
The draft document for the Social Summit in Copenhagen includes a paragraph (No. 71) from the Vatican seeking to address the problem of arms with indiscriminate effects, e.g. land mines and laser weapons. Britain has bracketed this paragraph which means we want it removed. Please use your influence to persuade the Government to support the Vatican paragraph, rather than to eliminate it.
From what I hear about that Copenhagen summit, the Government had their way, and the Vatican's proposal was not taken on board. The Minister should explain why the Government took that position.
The land mines protocol of the inhumane weapons convention is acknowledged to be weak. For example, it does not apply to internal conflicts. Instead of trying to strengthen it, the Government are trying to exploit it. They keep saying that mines can be used in accordance with the protocol, and that mines do not pose great dangers to civilian populations. That is poppycock. The Government are also blocking the call for a moratorium and a total export ban.
By dragging their feet, the Government could deem worthless the review conference due to take place in September, in which land mines will be the major subject for debate. We should not wait until September in any case, we need action now, and strong action from Governments such as the British Government, to ensure a moratorium and a total export ban if we are to encourage other Governments and other countries to do the same.
There is a difference between the political parties on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, has made it clear that the Labour party has called for the Government to fully support the UN motion on halting the export of anti-personnel mines, including the high-tech varieties with self-destruct mechanisms. Indeed, my hon. Friend assures me of the proposed ban of export of all anti-personnel land mines.
Oxfam has also made recommendations of which the House should be aware. Among them, it recommends at the very least that a ban on the export, transfer or sale of all anti-personnel mines, including those with self-destruct and self-neutralising mechanisms, should be agreed at the final review conference. The inhuman weapons convention should be made applicable to internal conflicts as well and it should be strengthened by an effective system of monitoring and enforcement.
Oxfam says:
The above recommendations are vital, but the only adequate solution is a total ban on the production, sale and use of anti-personnel mines.
The Government should adopt such a policy and, if they do not, they risk being almost—I hesitate to say it—the Myra Hindley of the international community, if they allow such indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians around the world to continue. We do not want that.

Mr. Alan Howarth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to speak?

Mr. Howarth: I hope I have.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Without the permission of the hon. Member for Leyton and the Minister, I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I apologise for that misunderstanding, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) wished to speak. We are rather short of time.

Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Davis: I shall give way for one intervention.

Mr. Howarth: I simply want to say that I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for introducing this subject, and for his cogent and moving speech. I cannot conceive of any sufficient justification for this country continuing to permit the export of anti-personnel mines. I hope very much that, in fact, we shall have an enhanced programme to support the clear-up of these appalling devices. Apart from the humanitarian consideration, how much more in Britain's interest that surely would be than to continue to allow Britain's contribution to the world, even in principle, to be one which allows such destructiveness and suffering to continue.

Mr. Davis: I shall have to move pretty fast to cover the points that I hope to cover.
I too congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on obtaining this debate, and raising this subject. I certainly welcome the opportunity to reply.
The effect of land mines on civilians has rightly become a humanitarian issue of considerable public concern. The Government fully understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Leyton, although I hope that he will forgive me if I do not quite agree with his hyperbole from point to point about the Government's policy.


As the hon. Gentleman said, the irresponsible use of land mines in recent conflicts, particularly in Africa and Asia, has had terrible consequences for civilians. Those consequences have endured long after the hostilities have ended. Scenes from those countries of awful damage to innocent civilians, often children, have understandably aroused strong emotions. The Government share the widespread abhorrence of those scenes. We share the views expressed by many charities and humanitarian agencies. Indeed, I believe that we share the views of the hon. Member for Leyton that the international community needs to act quickly.
The international community is acting. Contrary to what the hon. Member said, I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom is taking a lead in many areas. We have led the way in proposing and implementing practical and sensible measures which will command wide adherence, and which will therefore do the job for which they are intended—reducing the danger to innocent civilians.
I should like to set out clearly what we have done so far, and what we propose to do in the coming months. In doing so, I hope to respond to the majority of the points raised by the hon. Member for Leyton. My first announcement as a Minister, on 27 July 1994, was an indefinite moratorium on the export of all anti-personnel land mines, other than those equipped with a self-destructing or self-neutralising mechanism. That moratorium covers all countries.
We are often asked—the hon. Member for Leyton raised this point—why it is necessary to confine the moratorium to non-self-destructing mines. The answer is that that, in our view, is the best way to achieve our principal objective, which is to protect civilians. It is not combatants in the heat of battle but civilians who have suffered most from the improper or immoral use of land mines.
The hon. Member for Leyton had a vivid phrase for such weapons. He said that they were weapons which act in slow motion. Civilians are killed or injured when they return home and when they leave their homes to go about their daily business—not just in the days and weeks following a war, but sometimes for years afterwards. It is the mines that were laid earlier but which are still active which lead to most of the terrible pictures that we have all seen, not the use of land mines in the conflict itself.
All land mines can cause injuries to civilians as well as soldiers. However, a smart land mine which self-destructs or is neutralised after a period is then no longer a danger to civilians.
The hon. Member for Leyton raised two issues, with which I want to deal very quickly, in respect of technical standards and research.

Mr. Alton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Davis: I apologise, but I cannot give way. I would have liked to give way, but I am very short of time.
Our experts tell us that, with regard to standards, a failure rate of one in 1,000 is possible. The American experts, dealing with a technology that is well understood, believe that a failure rate of one in 1 million is achievable. Although the hon. Member for Leyton said that there was no research on the matter, as soon as the United Nations weaponry convention reaches a conclusion, and we reach

a conclusion on our code of practice, the Ministry of Defence will undertake work to ensure that mines that obtain under the new convention meet those conditions properly.
It would be easy to say, "Ban the export of all land mines." However, the vast majority of countries, including Britain and most other western countries, accept that land mines are a legitimate means of defence, provided that they are used responsibly and in accordance with the laws of war. Frankly, we would not persuade many countries that they should give up land mines altogether.
Even more importantly, a complete ban on the export of land mines by well-meaning western countries would have little effect where it really matters. The conflicts which the hon. Member for Leyton and I have mentioned have largely been in the developing world. Land mines are a cheap weapon. In our view, it is only realistic to recognise that they will continue to be used.
Our aim should be to ensure that existing stocks are replaced as quickly as possible with self-destructing mines. That is not only a logical and realistic approach; in our view, it is the most humanitarian approach. That is why I announced last July a ban on the export of anti-personnel land mines which do not self destruct. It is our policy to support steps that represent realistic and practical progress. Our decisions at each stage reflect that.
I am pleased to be able to announce to the House an extension of the United Kingdom's policy. I am announcing a ban, with immediate effect, on the export of all types of anti-personnel land mines to those countries which have not ratified the United Nations weaponry convention. I can also announce—this relates directly to a point raised by the hon. Member for Leyton—that the United Kingdom's moratorium is now extended to cover a total ban on the export of non-detectable anti-personnel land mines.
That enhanced moratorium underlines our commitment to put an end to the trade in the types of anti-personnel land mines that are the most dangerous to civilians. It adds a further safeguard by confirming our support for a complete ban on non-detectable anti-personnel land mines which are especially difficult, dangerous and expensive to clear, as the hon. Member for Leyton quite rightly pointed out. Above all, it underlines our support for the principle that land mines must be used responsibly. I hope that it shows a principled and sensible example.
We hope that our action will encourage more countries to ratify the UN weaponry convention and abide by its provisions. We hope that others which have not announced moratoriums, and most particularly those countries which produce land mines, will follow that example soon. However, we are not simply making a gesture, as I believe we were accused of doing earlier, important though that is. The United Kingdom was one of the initial signatories to the 1981 UN weaponry convention—the so-called inhumane weapons convention. That convention lays down rules for the responsible use of land mines and certain other weapons.
The hon. Member for Leyton was correct to say that we did not ratify that convention until earlier this year. However, that was a somewhat technical and legal point, because our armed forces have been trained, throughout the period since signature, to abide by the convention. They have abided by it in two wars—the Falklands war and the Gulf war. In the Gulf war, we were dealing with


an adversary who had not even signed the convention, let alone abided by it. Rather more than most countries, we can demonstrate a commitment to the notion of responsible behaviour in warfare.
The weaponry convention is an important landmark in the process of establishing sound laws of war, but it is now 15 years old. It is generally accepted that its provisions need strengthening. The hon. Member for Leyton made that point. The convention will be reviewed at a conference to be held in September. We will be there, as a full state party, and we will be taking a lead.
Our objectives are to strengthen the convention and to persuade more states to ratify and abide by it. When I talk about strengthening the convention, I mean a significant expansion of its coverage; here I come to a point raised by the hon. Gentleman. We want the convention to cover not only international conflicts but civil wars and other internal conflicts. That is vital, because the majority of cases of land mine abuse are not international wars. It is important that the convention should send a signal that the use of land mines in internal conflicts should also be governed by the humanitarian laws of war.
These are important areas in which we are working for the strengthening of the convention. It is important that the convention should set down clear definitions and standards for self-destructing mines, for the reasons that I set out earlier. It should stipulate when and how minefields are to be marked to keep civilians out. It should ensure that minefields are properly mapped, both to assist mine clearance after a conflict and to protect humanitarian agencies. There should also be provision to assist those agencies when working in those areas. Those are provisions which our own armed forces are trained to adhere to strictly.
The convention should ensure that mines are detectable. There is broad agreement on that, and on banning non-detectable anti-personnel mines. We also support the proposal that the convention should introduce international controls on transfers.
Those are our aims for the review conference in September, and we shall continue to work hard to achieve them. That means getting international consensus. There has been good progress in the preparations, but there is still much work to do. We have some persuading to do. We arc working with other countries to ensure that the results of the review are the best possible.
We have invested a good deal of effort in the revision of the weaponry convention, but we believe that serious land mine problems should be attacked on several fronts. To that end, last summer we proposed a code of conduct restricting the transfer of land mines. That is intended as a politically binding undertaking, to which states could accede with great formalities, and as a first step towards a more comprehensive programme for the control of land mine transfers. The idea provoked much useful thought and helped to concentrate minds, and others have made their own suggestions.
In addition to close co-ordination with our European allies, we are dealing extremely closely with our American friends on this matter. We aim to take it forward in parallel with the efforts of the weaponry convention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Mr. Warren Hawksley.

Hayley Green Hospital

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I thank you for allowing me to raise the important issue of Hayley Green hospital and its proposed closure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a very important issue in my constituency. The closure of any hospital is of great importance to Members of Parliament. Before I came to the House, I always believed that, in local government, small—whether in hospitals or schools—can be beautiful. I formed that view from an early age, perhaps because my late father was the chairman of a cottage hospital in Oswestry, which was set up with his help before the last war. Local small hospitals are something that the people are entitled to hope can be retained.
This case is made even worse because Hayley Green hospital is the only hospital in my constituency. Although every Member of Parliament would be worried about a closure, I suggest that the problem would be worse if it involved the closure of their only hospital.
Hayley Green is a very good hospital and, for more than 100 years, has provided useful hospital cover for generations of people in the Halesowen area. The purpose of that cover has changed and the hospital has had different uses. As time goes by, one accepts that changes are necessary, and I shall discuss the possibility that the hospital could, I hope, have a new use, but still in the health sphere.
The fact that the hospital is very popular was demonstrated when, in a very short time, the friends of the hospital received the signatures of 15,000 of my constituents who were calling for it to be kept open. The hospital is pleasant, the staff are very caring and it is set in beautiful grounds near a bus route. It is convenient for people visiting friends and relatives in the hospital.
As well as the massive objections from my constituents, it is interesting to note that, when the community health council was consulted, as the rules require, it formally objected to Dudley health authority's proposals. I suggest that it is the health watchdog to which we should listen.
If I were on the Opposition Benches, I would be saying that the closure was due to Government cuts, and I would be shouting and hollering political suggestions. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)—the only Opposition Member present—but that is not the case. In Halesowen, we are paying for the fact that, since 1979, the Government have increased expenditure on health by about 68 per cent. in real terms. The increase in the health budget is causing our problems.
The hospital was full and well used until August last year, and no one locally thought that there was any danger of it being closed. The problem has arisen because of Government investment in the building of a new district general hospital in Sandwell. The opening of that hospital resulted in the withdrawal of patients who had been in Hayley Green but were residents of Sandwell. Naturally, the Sandwell authority has taken them back to their own area. I am sorry to disappoint the Labour party, but this is a case not of cost cutting, but of increased expenditure in the neighbouring authority.
Half the patients at Hayley Green came from the Sandwell area, which is why the hospital had only 50 per cent. occupancy after the new hospital opened in August


last year. I accepted, as did most of my constituents, that something had to be done. One cannot run a hospital on only 50 per cent. occupancy. I, and to a certain extent the health authority, started an appeal to find alternative uses for the hospital site. I ought to explain that it is a green-field site and cannot be sold, as some people have suggested, for use as a supermarket or petrol station. That would not be approved by the local council, which has confirmed its use as a health establishment, and that is how it must remain.
If the hospital is closed, one must assume that patients from my constituency will be moved to one of the Dudley hospitals. Interestingly, during the consultation period, when we heard people's concerns about the proposals, the only supporter of the closure I heard of was a Dudley resident. His reason was that the hospital was too far away, and was very hard to get to by public or private transport because the road system drags one through Merry Hill, which is an area of certain congestion. The public transport system does not easily allow the cross-Dudley route. I suggest that that argument was the greatest argument that we had in Halesowen for retaining the hospital.
When the consultation period started, Dudley said that only 48 local—that is, Halesowen—patients had been in the hospital during the previous year. At the end of the consultation period, as many of my constituents had argued that that figure did not look right, Dudley health authority admitted that the 48 should have been 119, and that the figure was nearly 150 per cent. out. That was not a very good basis for making the original decision to close the hospital.
I appreciate that Dudley health authority's request has gone to the region which, in the view of many of my constituents, merely rubber-stamped it, and that because the community health council objected, the matter is with the Secretary of State. I appreciate that it might well be slightly sub judice as it is in her hands and I do not expect an answer today. I do not expect a yes or a no, but I hope that the Minister will be able to cover a few of my questions in his reply.
During the consultative procedures, quite serious questions have been raised. The first concerns the Dudley hospital trust, which was set up in April 1994 and had been using Hayley Green for its patients. In April 1994, Hayley Green was not surplus to requirements and was still needed as part of its plan. Because the regional health authority's lawyers had not completed the paperwork when the closure was proposed, they are claiming that the property will remain with West Midlands regional health authority.
That is unfair. If the Department could suggest that the capital that would be raised by selling the hospital, if it is sold, or as a result of whatever happens to the site, should be used for the benefit of people in the area, as Hayley Green is an old hospital that was raised by voluntary endeavour, my constituents would feel much better. That would not seem an unreasonable suggestion, as it should have been the capital of the trust when it started up in April last year.
The second question also involves the trust. I accept that this is early days—certainly for trusts in our part of the country—but we had many discussions as to what would happen to the hospital. I have here a leaflet entitled,

"Hayley Green Hospital: Need It be Closed?", which advertised a public meeting. I was listed as being present to speak, Dudley health authority sent its chief executive and the trust was invited to send its chairman or chief executive, but it did not do so and took little part in the consultative procedures.
I am concerned that, as a Government, we should persuade trusts to accept a certain amount of responsibility if a hospital closure is proposed because of the withdrawal of purchasing contracts on the site. They should take part in the consultative procedures and look actively for other ways in which the facilities that are being closed could be useful in the health field. I say that deliberately, because the chairman of the health authority—who attended the meeting with the chief executive and myself—felt that many of the questions asked could have been answered very much better by the trust.
My third point is whether the recent case of the 55-year-old Leeds man who complained to the NHS ombudsman has any relevance to this case, and some of my constituents have written to me recently regarding that case. My hon. Friend the Minister stated that some health authorities will now be forced to re-provide withdrawn intensive nursing and other services for the elderly as a result of the ombudsman case. I ask for a reassurance that we shall look again before a decision is made to see whether the local health authority might need the hospital provision to honour that judgment. I hope that that point will be given serious consideration.
My fourth point is that, if the decision is made to close the hospital, the site should be used for health. I have stated that the site would be unlikely to get planning permission for any other purpose. The local league of friends might well consider setting up an old people's home in the form of a trust, and the local social services committee might well be prepared to offer 15 people to put into such a home.
Can my hon. Friend say whether it is appropriate to encourage Dudley health authority to take an interest in what happens to the hospital, and to work with social services and possibly with the league of friends to see whether a trust can be set up? That is a possibility, but nobody will be prepared to give it serious consideration until we know that closure is inevitable.
But if that happens, will it be possible to have such provision on a site designated only for health? West Midlands regional health authority, which obtained the property by unfair means—on the day when the trust was set up, the property was in use—should offer a reasonable lease to Dudley health authority, social services or a trust, so that the site can be used for the elderly.
My fifth point is that I would like to know what is to happen to the proceeds that will be raised if the site is sold. That is important, and I hope that the proceeds will come back into the Dudley area or the west midlands area.
I hope that I have shown that we are realistic in Halesowen. We realise that we have to tackle the problem that has been created by the building of a brand new hospital at Sandwell, but we believe that Halesowen should not suffer to the extent of having no hospital provision at all. We believe that the hospital can and should be saved. If it is not saved, we should look at the possibility of another health-based public service being provided. To do that, we shall need the help and good will


not only of the Department and the Minister, but of West Midlands regional health authority and Dudley health authority.
Even at this late stage, I hope that we can convince the Department that the approval for closure that the West Midlands authority has requested should not be granted. I also hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the use of the premises in the long term may include health purposes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) on having the opportunity to initiate this debate, and on the helpful and measured way in which he has done so. Hon. Members who have had small hospitals in their constituencies understand the loyalty and affection that they can engender, and the concerns that are raised when there are question marks over their future.
While my hon. Friend kindly excused me from giving an answer to his main question today—he is right to say that that is not possible—he asked for clarification and answers that might help to reassure people. As he said, if they do not have the facilities that they have now, they would like to ensure that there is good health provision in their area. That is why I am glad to respond to the debate.
As my hon. Friend said, the proposal to close Hayley Green hospital has been contested by the community health council, and it has been referred to the Secretary of State by West Midlands regional health authority. My right hon. Friend has yet to reach a decision on its future.
My hon. Friend will also know that the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust, which serves the residents of the borough of Dudley, is divided among five sites. While I appreciate the desire of the residents of Halesowen to retain services at Hayley Green hospital, the proposal that the hospital be closed will be judged on whether it is based on sound clinical and managerial factors, and with the best interests of the residents of the borough of Dudley in mind.
Hayley Green hospital is sited extremely close to the south-eastern boundary of the borough and has traditionally performed several roles, mainly connected with services for elderly people. Those services include rehabilitation for elderly patients with medical conditions, chest medicine for patients with chronic conditions and a 10-place pre-discharge unit for patients getting ready to transfer home following treatment. That amounts to a complement of 47 beds. The hospital serves patients from all over Dudley and occasionally patients from outside the borough.
Last April, the Dudley Group of Hospitals trust had to accept a large reduction in the contract that it had with Sandwell health authority. That was as a direct result of Sandwell Healthcare NHS trust planning to open, and subsequently opening, the new Rowley Regis community hospital in September. It enabled Sandwell health authority to purchase more locally accessible services for its population, removing much of its requirement for services from the Dudley Group of Hospitals. As my hon. Friend said, the problem has been caused by increased Government investment in the health service, which has resulted in new facilities that have affected his constituency.
The Dudley Group of Hospitals, as a self-governing trust, chose to concentrate the impact of the contract change on one site rather than try to spread savings attempts across a variety of sites in the trust. That meant the closure of more than half the beds at Hayley Green hospital, leaving the unit—in its view—unviable and extremely expensive to run. If the Dudley Group of Hospitals was to retain the site with its residual services, I am told that that would entail an additional cost of £180,000 per annum to Dudley health authority. As I am sure my hon. Friend can understand, those are funds that the health authority would prefer to invest in health care for the residents of Dudley, rather than—as the authority sees it—spend them on the maintenance of underused buildings.
As my hon. Friend is aware, Dudley health authority proposed that Hayley Green hospital should he closed and that the services previously purchased from there should be purchased from Corbett hospital, which is a part of the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust, and from the newly opened £12 million Rowley Regis community hospital in Sandwell.
I am told that the majority of patients treated at Hayley Green are from outside the Halesowen area, although a not inconsiderable minority are locally based. During the consultation exercise, some of those people from outside Halesowen—it sounds as if my hon. Friend heard from one of them—commented on the travel difficulties they faced in getting to the hospital. That is a serious and important issue locally, and I understand that the proposals acknowledge those concerns. If the proposals were to be approved, Halesowen residents would have the choice of two nearby hospitals, while residents of the rest of Dudley would also benefit from improved access to services.
I am aware that other benefits have been identified, such as those arising from the development of an integrated service at Corbett hospital. The proposals outline a service better supported by a full multidisciplinary team, with on-site medical staffing at all times—facilities that are not available at Hayley Green. It is said that patients would also benefit from safer, speedier transfer to the rehabilitation programme after acute care.
Dudley health authority has also identified net savings of more than £200,000 a year through the removal of services from Hayley Green hospital and their reprovision at Corbett hospital and Rowley Regis community hospital. Those savings come from reduced site costs and through being able to offer alternative services on a more integrated basis, with only small cost increases.
The proposal is to use those savings to improve services for people in need of rehabilitation. My hon. Friend asked about the role of the regional health authority. Capital receipts from the disposal of assets go to the region, and it is for the regional health authority to decide how best to dispose. I am sure that it would wish to take into account the points that my hon. Friend made today, and other points that are made locally between now and any such decision, should it be made. Other revenue savings can be reinvested, and I understand that there are two possible plans. One is to set up a stroke rehabilitation service and the other is to establish a post-discharge support team, to lend home-based support to patients recently discharged from hospital.


I am assured that services at Hayley Green would not be removed until their replacements were up and running. As far as is practicable, patients currently at Hayley Green hospital, and any subsequently transferred there, would have their hospital treatment concluded at that hospital if they so wished.
My hon. Friend raised the concern today that he raised with the chairman of the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust, about why the trust was unable to lead in the public consultation exercise. It may be helpful if I point out that procedures must be followed when a significant change of service provision, or closure of a hospital, is being considered. That involves the purchaser—in this case, Dudley health authority—conducting a public consultation explaining the proposals and seeking local views, including those of the community health council.
We would expect local providers, such as the Dudley Group of Hospitals trust, to be fully involved in that process. However, as purchasers are responsible for ensuring effective local health care provision, responsibility for any changes in that provision must fall to them. The effectiveness of the consultation exercise is one of the issues to be considered when the proposals are placed before the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that, two weeks ago, I was involved in issuing clear and practical guidance to health authorities, local authorities and other agencies on NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing health care needs. In drawing up that guidance, we looked very carefully at the points raised in the many helpful and thoughtful responses that we received on the draft guidance, which we issued for consultation last summer. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter.
The key objectives of the guidance are, first, unambiguously to remind health authorities that it is a fundamental responsibility of the NHS to arrange and fund services to meet people's needs for continuing health care, including, where appropriate, continuing in-patient health care. Secondly, the guidance requires all health authorities to review their current arrangements. Here, I suspect, is my hon. Friend's rub. They should draw up policies and eligibility criteria for continuing health care and, where significant gaps in provision exist, take action to fill them. The guidance offers a further opportunity to strengthen collaboration between health and local authorities.
Thirdly, the guidance sets out a detailed national framework, which all health authorities must reflect in their local arrangements. I hope that that will lead to much greater consistency across the country in how those issues are handled, while preserving an appropriate level of local flexibility to respond to local needs. Fourthly, it reinforces the special care required in making decisions about hospital discharge for frail and vulnerable people who are likely to need continuing intensive support, whether on a long-term or short-term basis, to aid rehabilitation and recovery. Again, that is germane to the points that my hon. Friend raised.
Finally, it encourages greater openness on how decisions about continuing health care are taken. Local policies and eligibility criteria will be subject to public consultation. They will be published with details included in community care charters. From April 1996, patients

who consider that eligibility criteria have not been correctly applied in their case will have the right to ask the health authority to review their case.
The need to strengthen local collaboration has been a central feature of the new community care arrangements. We have strengthened the incentives for close working by requiring local authorities, as a precondition to receiving the community care special transitional grant, to facilitate agreement between their social services departments and local health authorities, on the arrangements for hospital discharge.
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. In return, I assure him that we shall ensure that the principles within the guidance are fully accounted for before any decision is made on the proposal to close Hayley Green hospital. Indeed, if my hon. Friend studies the guidance carefully, he will see that it contains a fairly clear timetable for the next stages of continuing care provision and that we do not expect any closures to take place, unless they meet the conditions within the guidance, before the review has taken place.
On the broader issue of health care within Dudley, I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to join me in congratulating the Dudley Group of Hospitals trust on managing to increase its activity levels by 7 per cent. over the past year, while reducing prices by 2 per cent. He referred to many of its achievements. The number of patients seen is formidable. It is forecast that, this year, it will treat 14,500 elective and 24,400 emergency in-patients; 20,600 day cases; 7,700 maternity cases; 46,850 out-patient first attenders; 5,100 day-care attenders; and more than 73,000 accident and emergency attenders.
While work remains to he done, some of the patient charter standards that have been achieved are impressive. No in-patients wait for more than 12 months, and it is expected that the target of no in-patients waiting for more than nine months, set as part of the ambitious West Midlands waiting times initiative, will be achieved by the end of March. There is immediate assessment in accident and emergency, and 30 minutes is the maximum waiting time for urgent cases. In 1994-95, I believe that no operation was cancelled twice, and that all patients whose operations were cancelled on the day of admission were admitted within one month, as required by the new patients charter. That is progress indeed.
I understand that the Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS trust has received a SIGMA award—a West Midlands award for quality developments—for its accident and emergency department. The trust is running initiatives to reduce trolley waits and delays in getting X-rays reported by senior doctors. A 20-bed ward designed to provide immediate admission for patients needing urgent medical attention was opened at Russell's Hall hospital last October and a second is due to open this September at Wordsley hospital. Those wards will allow patients to bypass the accident and emergency department and so reduce trolley waits further.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, good health care within Dudley is not restricted to the Dudley group alone. In 1993-94 the Dudley Priority Health NHS trust achieved a five-star rating in five areas of the performance league tables. Last year, the trust opened a new £10.9 million mental health unit. Work was started on a new health facility incorporating a child and family psychiatric unit, which is due to open in July this year, and the trust is working closely with the local community and schools


on the project. Three new mental health units have been established in conjunction with social services in the borough, and a fourth unit is under discussion.
My hon. Friend has a particular interest in the area of Halesowen and I am sure that he will agree that over the past seven years there has been considerable expansion in the range of health facilities available locally. The residents of Halesowen have seen the commissioning of a new health centre, a new community mental health service base and the creation of a 24-place home, primarily for local people with mental health problems. In addition, a new clinic is currently being built on the eastern side of Halesowen, which will provide extensive local services.
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the people of Halesowen and Stourbridge, as well as the rest of the borough of Dudley, are provided with a first-class service of which both patients and staff can be justifiably proud. I thank him for bringing his concerns to my attention. I assure him that they will be given full consideration before any decision is taken, and any decisions will be made in the best interests of the people of Dudley.

Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons

2 pm

Dr. Joe Hendron: This debate is about a major miscarriage of justice. Three men are in prison in Northern Ireland serving two life sentences each for murders that they did not commit.
It is alleged that Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons are guilty of murder because they were present at a violent incident, which occurred at a different location and was perpetrated by two unknown assailants and which culminated in the murder of two army corporals. None of the three men is accused of direct involvement in the murder; none had direct knowledge of the direct perpetrators; none is alleged to have any paramilitary connections, including membership of the Irish Republican Army; and none has a criminal record. They all maintain their innocence.
On 19 March 1988, Corporals David Howes and Derek Wood were murdered by the IRA in Penny lane in Andersonstown in west Belfast. What happened to the two soldiers was extremely brutal, and the nearest thing to the crucifixion of Christ that one could see. Earlier that day, due to the presence of world media, millions of television viewers watched in horror as a crowd in west Belfast set upon the two occupants of a silver Volkswagen that had driven into a large funeral procession. One of the occupants of the car fired a shot, but shortly afterwards the two men were violently hauled from their car, disarmed, taken to Casement park, stripped and savagely beaten.
When their pockets were searched, it became apparent that the two men were soldiers in civilian dress, and they were later identified as Corporals David Howes and Derek Wood. They were subsequently driven in a black taxi to Penny lane about half a mile away, where they were shot dead by the IRA.
Those events took place in a highly charged atmosphere. The funeral into which the soldiers drove was that of Kevin Brady, an IRA man. Mr. Brady, along with two others, was murdered a few days earlier in Milltown cemetery after a gun and grenade attack by a loyalist at the funeral of three unarmed IRA members who were shot dead in Gibraltar by the Special Air Services. No explanation has been given as to why the corporals were present at the funeral procession, nor why the police and the army did nothing to attempt to rescue them.
Those who attended Kevin Brady's funeral were very apprehensive, and genuinely believed that the car contained loyalist gunmen who were hellbent on mass murder. Much of what happened—particularly the final murder—was filmed by an army helicopter, but the two IRA gunmen have never been identified or apprehended. Instead, scores of people were arrested and more than 40 were charged in connection with their activities in and around the stopping of the car and the grievous bodily harm inflicted on the soldiers prior to their being taken away by taxi to be murdered by the IRA.
I am seriously concerned about other cases, but my main focus today is on three of the men who have been found guilty of murder. I believe that a grave miscarriage of justice has taken place. I further believe that Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Timmons should he released immediately.


All three men were found guilty of murder under the principle of common purpose. It is accepted that none of them had been convicted of the actual murders or was present when the soldiers were murdered. Mr. Justice Carswell ruled that the accused were guilty either because there was a plan to murder the two soldiers and the accused knowingly agreed to and supported the joint enterprise; or, if the purpose of the joint enterprise was not to commit murder, it was foreseeable that a murder might be committed. Given the unpremeditated nature of the incident, there has been no suggestion that there was a preconceived plan to murder the soldiers.
The Committee on the Administration of Justice report commented:
When considering Kane, Timmons and Kelly it is crucial that their entire alleged involvement lasted only a few minutes.
Therefore, how could it possibly be foreseeable that a murder might be committed?
Patrick Kane was arrested in December 1988 at his home and he was taken to Woodburn police barracks where he was interrogated for several hours. At no time was a solicitor or an appropriate adult—I use that term in the legal sense—present. Later that day, he was charged with grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment. He was allowed out on bail of £150 and two sureties of £300 each. At no time was he remanded in custody—I emphasise that point. He continued working for 14 months while out on bail, and a judge allowed him to go to the Republic of Ireland on holiday as the police had no objection to the trip.
The charge of murder was added in June 1989. Even though charged with murder, Patrick Kane was allowed to stay out on bail until his trial in February 1990. He was found guilty of counselling and procuring the murder of the soldiers, because the judge held that Kane was present at and engaged to a minor extent in the physical beating of the soldiers, and that the accused must have known that murder was one possible outcome of his illegal conduct.
Kane was convicted on the basis of controversial video identification evidence and on confessions that he was alleged to have made to the police following several hours of sustained interrogation. It was clearly established before Patrick Kane's trial that he had the IQ of a 10 or 11-year-old and that he was considerably deaf. Dr. Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson, head of forensic psychology services and clinical psychologist to the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley hospitals, examined Patrick Kane on 18 February 1990 in prison for approximately two hours.
In his report, dated 19 February 1990, he comments that at the beginning of the session Mr. Kane begged not to be asked to read anything. He explained that he was almost completely illiterate and felt very embarrassed by it. He said that he tried very hard to cover up his illiteracy when he was with people he did not know. He did not want the other prisoners to know that he could not read or write and, on occasions, he would pretend to other prisoners that he could read.
In his conclusion, Dr. Gudjonsson commented that Mr. Kane's IQ falls at the bottom 8 to 9 per cent. of the general population. That would give him a mental age of about 11 years. He found that Mr. Kane was almost completely illiterate and that the most striking feature of Mr. Kane's personality was his high anxiety. Dr.

Gudjonsson felt that Mr. Kane was clearly a man of nervous disposition who would be at a considerable disadvantage when having to cope with an unfamiliar and demanding situation. When in a situation that he found particularly stressful, Dr. Gudjonsson found that Mr. Kane would be more inclined than the average person to consider only the immediate or short-term consequences of his behaviour.
Patrick Kane has suffered from defective hearing for many years and has attended the ear, nose and throat department of the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast since 1968. A senior consultant at the hospital, Mr. Roy Gibson, prepared a report on 21 February 1990, which was submitted to the court by Patrick's defence lawyers. Mr. Gibson studied Patrick's notes and said that it appeared that Mr. Kane had first attended the Royal Victoria hospital on 25 March 1968. It was recorded in his notes that
his hearing reserve is so poor that it is not justifiable to operate on him at all".
He had surgery on his right ear in 1989. In the report's conclusion, Mr. Gibson stated:
Patrick Kane has a moderate hearing loss at low tones and a severe hearing loss at high tones in both ears".
We have evidence from one of the country's leading psychologists that Patrick Kane had the intelligence of an 11-year-old, yet for some mysterious reason Dr. Gudjonsson's report was not made available to the trial judge or to the judges in the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Gibson's reports on Mr. Kane's defective hearing were accepted by the court, but at no time discussed either at the main trial or at the Court of Appeal. Despite his obvious handicaps and the contravention of his rights and natural justice, he had been interviewed five times on the first day of his detention—from 10.30 in the morning until late at night—in the absence of a solicitor or any other appropriate adult, as is provided by law in cases such as his.
He asserts that the statements that he made to the police are false and were made out of fear and confusion. Furthermore, the claim made by the police that he kicked one of the soldiers and escorted a priest, Father Alex Reid, away from the scene of the attack is entirely inconsistent with the video evidence of events. A policeman who interviewed Mr. Kane stated in evidence:
Had I had any idea that he had a hearing defect, I possibly would have looked for an interpreter.
In the BBC documentary "Rough Justice" Mr. Kane's case was examined in great detail and John Ware, the reporter, concluded that the conviction and life sentence passed on Mr. Kane were perverse. On the programme, Peter Thornton QC agreed that a jury might well have reached a different conclusion from Mr. Justice Carswell who, as a Diplock court judge, was sitting alone.
In the same programme, Mr. John Ware spoke about Father Alex Reid, who had been an independent witness in Casement park. Father Reid did not believe that the soldiers would be murdered; he thought that the danger was not from the IRA, but from people losing their heads. He said that he was holding on to both soldiers and thought that he had things under control. It finally became clear to him that the IRA was taking charge after the men began to be stripped. Mr. Justice Carswell seemed to see the stripping as the benchmark for deciding when there could have been no doubt about the soldiers' fate.
Kane said in his statement that he saw a priest on his knees saying prayers beside one of the persons. He goes on to say that he realised then that something bad was


happening or going to happen and decided that he wanted out. Indeed, the man in the green jacket seen on video and believed by the judge to be Kane is clearly walking towards the gates, avoiding any contact with the crowd around the half-naked soldiers. He stays behind the wall, keeping well way from the action. The green man cannot leave immediately because, as the heli-tele showed, the park gates were closed. While the man in the green jacket is behind the wall, an IRA man dressed in white goes into the crowd and takes Father Reid from someone else and Father Reid is manhandled towards the gates.
The judge's conflicting assessment of Patrick Kane's statement must give further concern. Mr. Justice Carswell accepted as true the written statement that Kane had made to the police, and he also relied on the video evidence to prove that the defendant was someone he claimed not to be. The judge chose to disregard major discrepancies between the video and the written evidence.
At the time of his arrest, Michael Timmons was also charged with murder, grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment. He admitted to having been present in Casement park when the soldiers were beaten. Like the other defendants, he denies that he intended to engage in serious criminal activity, still less in a conspiracy to murder.
Although Mr. Timmons was not accused of direct involvement in the murder of the two soldiers, or even of transporting them to the place where they were murdered by others, he was found guilty of murder. The appeal judges concurred with Mr. Justice Carswell's finding.
Sean Kelly was arrested some 11 months after the murder of the two soldiers. He made a statement to the police giving an account of his movements that day and denied any involvement in the murder or beating of the two men. He then chose to exercise his right to remain silent, both in response to further police questioning and at the trial itself.
Mr. Justice Carswell found inconsistencies between Mr. Kelly's statement to the police and the video evidence, yet he had reservations about accepting the identification of Kelly from the heli-tele film on its own because of the poor quality of the film. Nevertheless, the judge determined that, although the video evidence was uncertain, it, combined with the adverse inference of guilt which he was able to draw from the silence of the accused, gave him sufficient grounds to find as a fact that Sean Kelly was in Casement park and that he was guilty of murder.
There have been other judicial inconsistencies. In another Casement park case, the driver of a black taxi was found guilty by Mr. Justice McDermott of transporting the soldiers to the place of the murders, but he was acquitted of murder.
In a second case, another person who actually confessed that at some point he thought that the soldiers would be killed was acquitted of murder by Mr. Justice McCollum, who claimed that the man did not know what he was saying and that he, the judge, believed that no one could have been thinking so clearly in such a situation.
In its report in 1992, the Committee on the Administration of Justice concluded:
the attitude of the particular judge hearing the case is sometimes just as important as what the accused did.".

Mr. David Trimble: I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I am reluctant to interrupt

him because of the shortage of time. On his last point, will he take into account the fact that, at the appeal hearing, the appeal judgment stated:
These contentions by the prosecution as to the legal basis for murder by the appellants as secondary parties were accepted by the defence as correct … It was not contended
by the defence
that the trial judge had misdirected himself as to the law, or misapplied it.".
In view of that clear statement by the Court of Appeal, will the hon. Gentleman withdraw the aspersions that he has cast on the judgment of the trial judge.

Dr. Hendron: No. I will most certainly not withdraw that. There are gross inconsistencies.
Anyone studying the case—we know it was a horrific slaughter of two soldiers—or reading the transcript of the trial and of what the appeal judge said should watch the "Rough Justice" programme as it showed that there are serious differences in interpretation of the statements, especially that made by Patrick Kane and the evidence on video. That is extremely important.
In conclusion, unlike Paratrooper Lee Clegg, whose case is being reviewed in June this year, Patrick Kane, Michael Timmons and Sean Kelly did not kill anyone. Those three men have not had a fair trial, and most definitely are not guilty of murder. As with the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, we are again seeing a gross miscarriage of justice. I am asking the Secretary of State, through the Minister, to take whatever steps are necessary to have the three men released forthwith.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): Before I respond to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), I should like to congratulate him on his success in securing an Adjournment debate for the second time. The subject is one about which he and many other people both inside and outside the House have a deep and sincere concern.
I welcome the opportunity presented to me to explain to the House my right hon. and learned Friend's role in these cases. The House may find it helpful if, at the outset, I remind him of the Secretary of State's powers to refer a case to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. They are the same as those available to the Home Secretary in respect of convictions in England and Wales.
It is not for Ministers to substitute their own assessment of the evidence in any case for that of the courts. Their function, by long-established practice, is to examine whether there is some new evidence or other consideration of substance that has not previously been before the courts and that now appears to cast some doubt on the safety of the conviction. This is the criterion: whether it appears to cast doubt. It is not for Ministers to reach a concluded view on whether a conviction is safe.
I remind the House that, on 30 March 1990, Kane, Timmons and Kelly were convicted of murder, grievous bodily harm and false imprisonment. On 5 July 1991, the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland upheld their convictions and sentences.
The Secretary of State and I have received many representations regarding the cases of the three men. The representations have in the main, but not exclusively, sought to dispute the deductions made by


the courts based on the evidence that they accepted. When representations have sought to challenge the evidence itself, they have tended to concentrate on the identification of the defendants from the considerable video and film footage that is available. In the case of every representation, the Secretary of State had to satisfy himself as to whether the points argued had or had not already been before the courts.
In addressing the question of identification evidence, the Court of Appeal said:
"In seeking to identify any of the appellants on the films, we reminded ourselves, being all too familiar with the frailties of identification, of the need for caution before reaching any firm conclusion".
The court went on to state, in respect of Patrick Kane:
Repeated running of the films, concentrated observation of them and comparison with the general appearance of Kane in the park satisfies us that the man seen inside the park dressed in the combination of colours of green anorak, dark trousers and white shoes was undoubtedly Kane.
In respect of Kelly, the court said:
We looked at the film very many times. We had it played and replayed over at normal and slow speeds. We were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Kelly was indeed the figure inside the Park that the prosecution pointed to.
I have also noted the widespread expression of unease concerning the application of the law on common purpose to these cases. I am sure that the House will expect me to comment on that aspect.
The principle of common purpose is not new, and its use is not confined to Northern Ireland or, indeed, to the United Kingdom. Mr. Justice—now Lord Justice—Carswell's written trial judgment provides a detailed account of the law pertaining to common purpose and his application of that law to the defendants; I therefore do not propose to rehearse all the arguments now.
I consider it important, however, for the House to hear Lord Lane's comments, expressed as recently as 1989, which the trial judge quoted in his judgment. Lord Lane said:
A must be proved to have intended to kill or do serious harm at the time he killed. B may not be present at the killing; he may be a distance away, for example, waiting in the getaway car; he may not know that A has killed; he may have hoped (and probably did) that A would not kill or do serious injury. If, however, as part of their joint plan it was understood between them expressly or tacitly that if necessary one of them would kill or do serious harm as part of their common enterprise, then B is guilty of murder".
In applying the law on common purpose, the court did not contend that Kane, Timmons or Kelly attended the funeral that day with murder in mind. However, the court did consider them to have joined in and given support to a joint enterprise, a foreseeable consequence of which was the eventual murder of the soldiers. It was that finding of fact that was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal's comments are also pertinent in relation to the principle of common purpose. It said:
These contentions by the prosecution as to the legal basis for murder by the appellants as secondary parties were accepted by the defence as correct both before the trial judge and this Court.

The court also stated:
It was not contended during the hearing of these appeals that the trial judge had misdirected himself as to the law, or misapplied it. The contentions were directed in each case against the Judge's findings of fact and the inferences he drew from them.
In the case of Kane, various representations have pointed to his illiteracy, aural impediment and intellectual limitations, and drawn attention to the fact that an "appropriate adult"—the hon. Gentleman's term—was not provided before and during his questioning by the police. All those aspects have been considered most carefully.
Patrick Kane was arrested in December 1988 under the powers derived from the ordinary criminal law, not emergency legislation. The provisions of the non-statutory "Guide to the Emergency Powers" which relate to the appointment of an "appropriate adult" were not therefore applicable. Similar "appropriate adult" provisions have subsequently been introduced for non-scheduled cases in code "C" of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, but they did not come into operation until 1 January 1990.
Patrick Kane's counsel at trial and on appeal argued that his statements should be treated as inadmissible. The Court of Appeal noted:
Before the trial judge, his counsel submitted that no weight should be given to his oral statements or the written statement because he was illiterate, of low intellectual ability and had a significant hearing loss. Before this Court his counsel, Miss McDermott QC, went further. She submitted that the trial judge should have ruled all these statements inadmissible on those grounds.
The court concluded:
This Court sees no reason why the judge should have held his statements either inadmissible or of no weight or lesser weight than they commanded on their face. The allegation of a hearing loss could not have been a relevant factor in the nature of the challenge made. It is clear from the transcript that the case he was making at trial implied that he had heard all the suggestions made to him by the police. Otherwise he could not have agreed with them through fear. Nor do we consider that the other grounds put forward are of any avail. He was at the time of his arrest a man of 31 years. Although he could not read or barely write, he was able to write his signature and the words 'No complaints'. But much more so, any detailed reading of the transcript of his evidence, particularly the searching cross-examination by Mr. Foote, shows that he had a ready capacity at all times to understand the purport of the questions put and at times to anticipate and evade what might have been incriminating.
It is clear that the question of Kane's intellectual abilities was very fully argued by his counsel and duly considered by the court. Those aspects therefore do not constitute new material on the basis of which my right hon. and learned Friend could properly ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider his case.
We have also been aware of suggestions of judicial inconsistency between this case and others. It must, however, be borne in mind that judges are duty bound to assess each case on its own circumstances—even when several cases arise from a common incident—and weigh the evidence separately: both the persuasiveness of the prosecution case and the credibility of the accused's defence. The fact that different outcomes may be pointed to does not of itself mean that a particular conviction is unsafe or a sentence wrong.
As I said, the Secretary of State has given the utmost thought to all the representations received before today, and has concluded that in respect of all three men the criterion for a referral to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland has not been fulfilled.
At this point it may be timely to remind right hon. and hon. Members that the Criminal Appeal Bill was approved without a Division on Second Reading in the House on 6 March. .A number of hon. Members welcomed its extension to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State's decision to seek to have the Bill extended to Northern Ireland followed a wide-ranging

consultation process. The new independent body will investigate miscarriages of justice and when necessary refer them to the Court of Appeal for review.
I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech today. I wish to assure him and the House that the Secretary of State's mind remains open and that he is willing to consider most carefully any further material put to him, pending the establishment of the new Criminal Cases Review Commission.

It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Out-of-town Shopping Developments

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the precise wording of the new guidance for planning powers relating to out-of-town shopping developments will be published.

Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the wording of the new guidance for planning powers relating to out-of-town shopping developments will be published.

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the precise wording of the new guidance for planning powers relating to out-of-town shopping developments will be published.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I hope to publish a draft of revised guidance on town centres and retailing for consultation before the summer recess.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern among small shopkeepers serving my constituency about the possible effects of out-of-town shopping?

Mr. Gummer: It is precisely for that and other reasons that I have brought in the planning guidance that has sought to reinvigorate our city and town centres and to increase the amount of mixed use, so that people can live, work, worship, shop and do many other things together in city centres, instead of relying on the motor car.

Mr. Dowd: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although the issue tends to concentrate on green-field sites outside relatively provincial towns, inner-urban areas whose developments will be on brown-field sites close to traditional ribbon high streets also present an issue? Will the guidance have anything to say about its impact?

Mr. Gummer: Of course it will be necessary to see that new development enhances the town centre, especially the shopping centre. Each case is different. Most of us, looking at Lewisham, would say that a number of serious development mistakes were made in the past. One has to try to provide the best answers within the framework that we shall lay down.

Mr. Bayley: Does the Minister accept that irreparable and irreversible damage has been done to many town centres by out-of-town developments, and that small businesses in constituencies such as mine have suffered at the expense of large businesses, which have been allowed to develop out of town? Does that not show that the unrestricted free market principles behind out-of-town developments have damaged many small, long-established businesses?

Mr. Gummer: That is a very odd question. The fact is that the centres of our cities have been run down, largely by appalling planning decisions taken by local Labour councils. We know who the people who have destroyed our cities are: Labour councillors who hate small businesses and who, when they controlled the business

rates, pushed them up so that more and more small businesses were driven to the wall. It is to repair that damage that I am spending a great deal of public money to redevelop our city centres for the benefit of all our people.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has done so far, but does he accept that there have been two sad developments in recent years, and not just in Labour areas? One has been the decline of the small specialist shop; the other has been the sucking of life out of the centres of many towns and cities. It is therefore important to try to redress the balance.

Mr. Gummer: I think that the old saying, "Don't use it, lose it," is sensible in respect of shopping. The out-of-town shopping centre has provided an important tradition which many people want. It is a question of striking a balance. It is universally true that, in the city centres that the Labour party has controlled, decline and degradation have been the results of its period of office. Only now are we beginning, with taxpayers' money, to rejuvenate our city centres as I have described.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that traders in the centre of Lichfield are heartened by today's news that retail sales are at their highest for more than 12 months? Is he further aware that retail sales will be enhanced by the fact that unemployment is the lowest it has been in three years?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the increasingly good economic news will be welcomed by those who want to expand their businesses. I want those businesses to expand in the centres of our cities and market towns, so that we can return to the vibrant communities which are so much a mark of Conservative communities and so much abhorred by the Labour party.

Mr. Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend consider in particular the problems caused by traffic and parking where so-called out-of-town development occurs on brown-field sites of the sort mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd)? His constituents and mine are affected by a major development at Bell green, Lewisham that poses the danger of having such an impact. I compliment the hon. Member for Lewisham, West on the assiduity with which he has pursued the concerns of his constituents and mine. Wider issues are at stake, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will examine them.

Mr. Gummer: I cannot comment on the particular example that my hon. Friend mentioned, but it is essential to ensure that proper provision for cars and parking is made in city centre developments. I want people to be able to choose whether to use a car to shop.

Mr. Vaz: Every time the Secretary of State speaks on this issue in the House, he leaves Government policy in utter confusion. Will the right hon. Gentleman simply tell the House whether he is in favour of out-of-town developments or against them? If he is in favour, how will he halt the decline of our town and city centres? If he is against, how will he ensure proper investment in town centre management? Is this just another two-faced policy from a two-faced Government?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has been lauded in the newspapers as a reasonable and polite person, but he is being neither on this occasion. He knows perfectly well


that he can like both apples and pears but need not say that he dislikes either of them. Out-of-town shopping development has been necessary and needed, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is saying to his constituents that they may not shop at a superstore. We need to get the balance right. It has moved too much to the out-of-town shopping centre, and I want to move it back to the city centre. Most people, but not the hon. Gentleman, view that as a balanced and sensible policy. The trouble with Labour is that it goes to extremes on everything—even shopping.

Business Rates

2. Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the increase in business rates in Waltham Forest and Redbridge following the recent revaluation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Rateable values in Redbridge and Waltham Forest have increased 28 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively. Transitional arrangements will restrict the average increase in bills in the next financial year to 7 per cent. in both districts.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister referred to the huge increases in business rateable values in those districts under the current revaluation, whereas those for the rest of London have fallen. Why is my part of east London singled out for unfair treatment? Businesses are already struggling to survive the recession, without having an added unjust burden. Now that the Minister is in control of business rates, why does he not personally intervene to stop my local firms being driven to the wall?

Mr. Jones: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, valuations are independently made by valuation offices. Of course he is right to say that inner-London rateable values have fallen. They have risen in outer London, but not as much as in Waltham Forest and Redbridge. I strongly suggest that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents contact the local valuation office and provide evidence to challenge any valuation thought to be inaccurate.

Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that a nationwide uniform business rate is greatly to the advantage of businesses? Does he recall the days when high business rates imposed by Labour authorities drove firms into bankruptcy and pushed many people out of jobs?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is correct. Nationwide, the Government are taking no more in real terms from businesses than in the previous year, because we are committed to increasing the take only in line with inflation. In the old days, some local authorities used to raid businesses to finance grandiose schemes, which was deplorable. They were, of course, Labour authorities.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is it not a fact that businesses increasingly know that it is this loony right Government who are putting up business costs? Is it not true that, in places such as Waltham Forest, Redbridge and the north of England, businesses blame the Government for

increasing their costs, and that when firms go to the wall the Government are responsible? Why does the Minister not apologise for the nationalisation of the business rate?

Mr. Jones: Fortunately, businesses are a great deal more sensible than the hon. Gentleman and they know full well that what the Government are taking is restricted to level terms finance. We have to face the fact that valuations will vary from area to area. An appeals system is built in so that people can challenge the rateable values that have been attributed to their businesses.

Objective 1 Funding

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in the utilisation of objective I funding on Merseyside; what representations he has received in respect of the participation of local authority and social partners on the committees monitoring the use of objective 1 funds; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Last November, approvals in principle for almost 800 projects, worth over £175 million, were announced, and 742 schemes have now received formal approval. The local authorities are fully involved in the committees monitoring the use of objective 1 funds, as are a range of other partners.

Mr. Wareing: I notice that the Minister did not answer the part of my question about the representation of social partners in objective 1 funding. I believe that he was told by Mrs. Wulf-Mathies, the Commissioner, as early as last November that social partners should be represented. According to an answer in the European Parliament, representations were made. Is the Minister aware that there is considerable enthusiasm on Merseyside for objective 1 status? People there are keen to get on with the work of the schemes, but they are thwarted by the inadequacy of the secretariat and by bureaucracy on Merseyside. If the Minister does not pull his finger out, Merseyside stands to lose.

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall not make any progress at all today if we have Adjournment debates instead of questions. Perhaps the Minister can answer briskly and questions can be to the point.

Mr. Curry: The Commission has accepted that the social partners are not represented. I accept that we need to get the next round dealt with more quickly; but, with 1,500 applications, there is a great deal of work to be done in the cumbersome scheme that we have to operate.

Mr. Alton: Is the Minister aware that, of the 106 applications in the past 12 months, only six have been agreed and that the process is in danger of silting up? Is there not a good case for appointing one person to take control of objective 1 bids to ensure that the programme works effectively?

Mr. Curry: The machinery is cumbersome, but it is imposed by the objective 1 mechanism which we cannot vary or short circuit. On capital projects, 42 regional fund bids have been approved. The social fund training schemes have been done quite quickly; another 25 should come in the next couple of weeks, and 30 had to go back for further work because they were not put together well


enough. We hope to bring those forward as soon as we can and we shall try to speed up the processing of the 1995 round bids. However, as I have said, there are 1,500 of them and it is necessarily a difficult process. We shall do our best.

Training

Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many training places have been created through regeneration policies since April 1992.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My Department's regeneration programmes have created more than 270,000 training places over this period.

Ms Hodge: At the peak of the last economic boom, there were desperate skill shortages in London, but 200,000 people were registered as unemployed. Does the Minister agree that the single regeneration budget guidelines should be reviewed to give training greater priority so that, if there is another economic boom, the crisis of no jobs will not be replaced by a crisis of no skills?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady obviously does not understand that the SRB is a partnership with local authorities and others. [Interruption.] She obviously understands more about urban degeneration than about urban regeneration. When she wore her previous hat, Islington in the 1980s was the seventh worst council of all the English local authorities in the index of local conditions; today it is the fourth worst.

Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the basic criteria for single generation bids was the creation of jobs? When the second round is considered, will he undertake to give priority to areas such as Erewash which were unsuccessful in the first round?

Sir Paul Beresford: I accept and understand my hon. Friend's concern for her area. I hope that she will help to ensure that its bid is more competitive. Through the process since 1992 or in the pipeline, some 340,000 jobs have been either created or safeguarded.

Contaminated Land

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether the liabilities for cleaning up contaminated land are too onerous for developers to carry out; and what is the effect on revitalising urban redevelopment.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): We have carried out a review of responsibilities for dealing with land contamination in which we consulted with a large number of landowners, developers, investors and others. One of the key objectives was to ensure that land was brought back into beneficial use. Our suitable-for-use policy requires action to clean up land only where contamination poses unacceptable actual or potential threats to health or the environment and where there are appropriate and cost-effective means so to do.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be a balance between the private and the public sectors in the costs of cleaning up contaminated land?

Therefore, should not the suitable-for-use principle be upheld and the Environment Bill amended to incorporate the common law provisions that have existed in this country for centuries? Should not the conveyancing system be modernised so that it is perfectly clear to all those who might buy potentially contaminated sites what their obligations will be under the new Bill?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about this subject and I am sure that he will contribute substantially to the discussions on the Bill when it comes to the House from the other place. I assure him that his considerations and those of others with like concerns will be taken into great account when the Bill is discussed.

Mr. Dafis: Is the Minister aware that a Welsh Office report has shown that there are 76 former gasworks sites in Wales where the land is seriously contaminated, including one site in my constituency? The local authority is finding it difficult to obtain any information on that matter. Will the Government agree to an amendment to the Gas Bill to enable information to be made available to the public about the level of contamination on former gas works sites? Could that not be achieved by making it a condition of the licence under the Gas Bill?

Mr. Atkins: There is quite a lot of gas production in Wales, of which the hon. Gentleman is a classic example. It is a matter for the Welsh Office, and I shall ensure that it is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's points.

Ms Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Hayes: This will be good.

Ms Ruddock: Yes, this will be good.
In his reply, the Minister said that there was a definition of actual harm. He clearly does not know that his colleagues in the other place have already amended the Government's Bill and introduced the qualification "significant". Is it not true that the Government do not know what to do about contaminated land and are having to choose between trying to don the green mantle and obliging their friends in the City?

Mr. Atkins: The trouble with the hon. Lady and the Labour Front Bench on this issue is that they are determined to ensure that industry—which is part and parcel of the problems of contamination and, equally, will be one of those that have to pay for it—has no part to play in the whole issue. We believe that it does and that balance is essential. When the Bill comes to the House, I am sure that the hon. Lady will be able to examine it in as much detail as she wants—and we will have every answer.

Standard Spending Assessments

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the methodology for calculating standard spending assessments for 1996-97.

Mr. Curry: I announced my programme for SSA changes during the debate on local government finance in the House on I February, at which the hon. Gentleman was present.

Mr. Rendel: In the discussions that the Minister expects to have this year, will he take account of the


growing discrepancy between the amount of interest on balances which is assumed in the formula and the actual amount raised?

Mr. Curry: The principle of notionality is at the heart of the system. We are trying to ensure that, over local government as a whole, we reflect what happens across the board. When it comes to individual councils, if we move to a system in which the SSA formula is there simply to reflect the actual spending patterns of councils, we will get some very grave distortions and unfairnesses. I am willing to examine all aspects of the SSA, within reason, and I shall certainly look at the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. However, he will understand that there is a basic principle and that, if we actually started to track individual spending, there would be serious problems in trying to run an objective system.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the concept of area cost adjustment continues to cause great heartache among shire counties, not least Hereford and Worcester? Will he join the local authority associations in reviewing the methodology so that a more sensible, transparent and apparently fair mechanism can be worked out to solve the problem?

Mr. Curry: We have already discussed with the local authority associations a research programme that would consider whether we could move towards a travel-to-work concept in assessing overall employment costs. I have said to the Association of County Councils that, if it can develop its suggestions into a practical alternative methodology, I shall examine that, along with whatever other ideas come forward to deal with the matter.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister accept that, whatever changes he may make in the methodology, if the Government continue to assume, for the purpose of calculations, that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place in Britain, the system will be rigged to the advantage of Westminster? If virtually every other local authority received the same Government support as Westminster, those authorities would not need to collect any council tax; they would go around paying out rebates.

Mr. Curry: It is about time that the hon. Gentleman visited Westminster. [Interruption.] Perhaps he should visit the bits of Westminster that he does not customarily visit. Yesterday, I received a delegation from Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Westminster in relation to their bids for the urban programme to aid severely deprived parts of those boroughs. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the 100 yards around Palace green represent Westminster, that shows that he knows damn little about local government.

River Thames

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of how those parts of London adjacent to the Thames can be more effectively utilised.

Mr. Gummer: My Department has recently undertaken a Thames strategy study and has produced a planning framework for the Thames gateway, both of which

directly deal with the issue and make recommendations to ensure that land use planning by riparian authorities takes full account of the special character of the river.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Thames in London is a priceless national asset that is disappointingly and significantly underused? Does he further agree that two of the keys to unlocking that problem are access to the river and attractions beside the river? In the second context, is it not encouraging that Bankside power station is to be taken over by the 'Tate gallery and that the new Globe theatre is nearing completion?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend about those last examples. I have considered carefully not only the planning guidance that we should give for the Thames but the nature of the Thames beyond the old Greater London council boundary to the sea. We have some proposals and I hope that he agrees that it is important to have wider public consultation. That is why I recently called in the proposals for a new building on the site near Battersea old church.

Mr. Tony Banks: If we are talking about power stations by the Thames, what about Battersea power station? It is one of most horrific sights in London in terms of the fact that it has been allowed to become derelict. The roof is off and a grave danger exists that the building will collapse; I suspect that that is precisely what the owners want. Will the Secretary of State take urgent action to do something about one of the great landmark buildings of London?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that I would go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman in his love of Battersea power station, but I recognise that many people are keen on that building. He will be happy to know that the relatively recent inspection showed that the building's structure is being properly looked after. We need to find a proper use for the building and to have the money to develop it. We would all like to know about it if the hon. Gentleman has a use into which he is prepared to put his money.

Planning Policy Guidance 13

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to take forward the advice issued in planning policy guidance note 13.

Mr. Gummer: I shall publish shortly a guide to good practice on PPG13, which relates to transport. My Department is funding research into the implementation of that guidance.

Mr. Lidington: Dos my right hon. Friend agree that central Government and local authorities need to treat land use planning and transport planning as two halves of a whole and not as discrete, separate entities if we are to strike the right balance between the interests of those who use cars and those who do not?

Mr. Gummer: That has been particularly shown in the establishment of Government offices which has brought together the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, and the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment. These matters are now seen in a holistic way, which means that we can produce a much more sensible answer. We need an answer that strikes a balance between the use of motor


cars and the traffic that such use produces. We do not want to follow the path outlined by the Opposition, who are opposed to the motor car. We need to be a party that makes the motor car our servant, not our master.

Housing Policy

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's plans for reviews of housing policy in the areas of (a) obligations and rights of leaseholders who have acquired their homes under the right-to-buy legislation, (b) local authority housing, (c) housing associations and (d) housing co-operatives.

Mr. Curry: We keep our housing policy under continuous review.

Mr. Hughes: That is a really helpful answer. If it is the case, will the Minister be a bit more explicit about when he will publish his proposals on the review of the right-to-buy legislation and its working for people who bought their homes from local authorities? A study is being undertaken, but he knows that many people are now trapped—they are unable to sell and unable to move and have extremely high service or capital charges. It is not a dream; it has turned out to be a nightmare. When will the Government introduce proposals to make the right to buy a realistic opportunity for the many who took up the option?

Mr. Curry: There are no plans to revise the right-to-buy legislation. Some 45,000 people a year are still moving from social housing to owner-occupation under the right-to-buy proposals, but I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring more particularly to leaseholders who bought their properties. I recognise that there is a specific problem. Up to now, we have consulted on three elements. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the good practice guide, with the rules governing mortgage indemnity offered by local authorities and an exchange sales scheme. We are looking to see whether we need to develop that package to deal with what I accept is a real problem for a number of people, although perhaps not for thousands, as is sometimes claimed. I accept that some people have a real difficulty, and we are anxious to find a way through for them.

Mr. Dunn: When my hon. Friend reviews housing policy, will be consider what steps he can take to bring pressure to bear on the local authorities that have the worst record in terms of rent collection and poor management of housing stock and the largest number of empty units of accommodation, and that are largely Labour-controlled?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The basic management skills—making sure that one does not have voids and that rent and taxes are collected—are all part of raising legitimate funds to be spent on services, something that local government should never forget is its prime and essential function.

Mr. Raynsford: Why does the Minister not recognise the disastrous impact of current Government policies on almost every aspect of housing? Will he acknowledge that his Department published figures this week showing that the output of new private homes is down by 11 per cent., that new council and housing association starts are down

by 31 per cent. and that, on current trends, the output of new rented homes this year will be down to 20,000, the worst figures for any year since the end of the second world war? When will the Government recognise that their policies have failed the nation and need to be revised comprehensively?

Mr. Curry: It is just not true. The hon. Gentleman should examine what is happening. He will see, for example, major growth in the role played by housing associations in the past 10 years and that tenure has been diversified away from local authorities, although he wants to lodge all housing construction with the local authorities again. He will also see that there have been major advances with the right to buy, which is creating a new generation of owner-occupiers.
The hon. Gentleman will see that housing policy has moved on from the grey monolithic policy which was espoused by the Labour party and to which it would want to return; we now have more diversification, with the private rented sector playing its part. He will find that Conservative housing policies are more effective, more diversified and deliver more choice to people and responsibility than the grey uniformity which is Labour's hallmark.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is the Minister aware that senior citizens in Northern Ireland are not permitted to buy their Housing Executive bungalows, although those bungalows may be in areas of very low demand?

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I shall examine the point that he makes and get in touch with him.

Pollution (Iver)

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last year from (a) hon. Members and (b) other bodies in respect of environmental pollution caused by industrial activities on the Buckinghamshire side of the River Colne at Iver with particular reference to the West Drayton area of the London borough of Hillingdon.

Mr. Atkins: Sixteen letters of objection were received concerning the planning enforcement appeals by A M Talbot Limited relating to the use of land at railway sidings in Thorney Mill road for the recycling of coated roadstone, including letters from my hon. Friend and from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. Friend now go further and ask Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to examine alleged atmospheric pollution caused by diesel engines on that site, which is greatly distressing my constituents on the West Drayton side of the River Colne?

Mr. Atkins: I know how concerned my hon. Friend and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield have been to fight the corner for their constituents. I shall certainly ask Mer Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to have a look at the site and see—without prejudice to the result, of course—what may or may not be done to assist.

Housing (Right to Buy)

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been sold under right-to-buy legislation.

Mr. Gummer: In England, more than 1.23 million homes have been sold under the right to buy. The figure for Great Britain as a whole is more than 1.5 million.

Mr. Knapman: That is excellent news. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that housing is more affordable than it has been for some years, and seek to promote opportunities for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people to join the property-owning democracy, for their benefit and for ours?

Mr. Gummer: The situation is improving considerably. We are now selling houses under the right-to-buy scheme or similar schemes to the tune of 60,000 per year. That means, of course, that those people are choosing to buy their homes knowing that the Labour party would have stopped them. That is the distinction between the parties.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the splendid way in which housing associations have reinvested the proceeds of houses sold under the right to buy? Why does he not let local authorities do the same?

Mr. Gummer: The right-to-buy system does not work in that way for housing associations—only if they have carried the right to buy on from the local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows on reflection. We allow local authorities to reinvest the money, but we also ask them to pay off the mortgages that they have incurred to build the houses in the first place.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing and enthusiastic support for the right to buy. I also thank him for listening to the great concerns of right-to-buy leaseholders in Enfield and Edmonton, who enthusiastically grasped the opportunity to buy, but now find themselves stuck in properties with structural damage which was not disclosed to them when they bought the houses. It is a reasonably small number of people, but they deserve our urgent help. Will the Secretary of State give me an answer?

Mr. Gummer: I praise my hon. Friend for leading the campaign of this relatively small but important group of people who have those particular problems. He knows that I am looking at them very carefully.

Housing Association Rents

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent for new lettings by housing associations; and what was the equivalent figure for 1989.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The average rent for housing association lettings made in the third quarter of 1994 was £45.63. The equivalent figure for the calendar year 1989 was £23.64.

Mr. Khabra: Does the Minister agree that the doubling of rent has been caused by the Government's deliberate policy of reducing the rate of grant to housing associations, which has fallen from 75 per cent. in 1989 to 62 per cent. today? Will he consider giving more grant

to the housing associations so that the rise in rents stop and more people can be given homes in housing association property?

Mr. Jones: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a trade-off between grant rates and volumes. Reducing the grant rate has, of course, resulted in 10,000 more lettings being made available. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right that the grant rate must be kept under review. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) made exactly that point as Minister for Housing and Planning when he answered questions before the Environment Select Committee on the subject some considerable time ago.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the enormous benefits to be gained from the wholesale transfer of housing stock to housing associations, which can mean far better management, a reduction in local authority debt, lower council taxes as a result, and far better conditions for those tenants whose houses are transferred?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to what has happened as a result of large scale voluntary transfers. It is not only a question of benefits for the local authority and for the tenants. Additional building has also been possible as a result of LSVT housing associations. They have also been able to bring forward their capital improvement programmes. It is very much a win-win situation.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that the private sector is looking increasingly warily at investing in housing association stock because rent levels are now so high that people can obtain those properties only if they can get full housing benefit? Does the Minister accept that the situation is now unacceptable and that we must do something more to ensure that units are offered at affordable rents?

Mr. Jones: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I spend much time discussing these matters with the lenders. We have found a continuing enthusiasm on their part for lending to housing associations, which they see as a solid investment.

Homelessness

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress on the problem of homelessness in Greater London.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: The number of households accepted by London local authorities as statutorily homeless continues to fall. Last year 9.9 per cent. fewer households were accepted than in 1993, which is 24 per cent. below the 1992 level. In central London, the Government's £182 million rough sleepers initiative has reduced the number of people sleeping rough by three quarters.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent news. Will he join me in congratulating the voluntary agencies which work so closely with his


Department? They have the experience, expertise and knowledge, and they know very well that there is no reason for anyone to sleep rough on the streets of London.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no problem in joining her in paying tribute to the voluntary agencies. They do a very good job in respect of rough sleeping and in respect of preventing homelessness elsewhere. However, it is also only fair to pay tribute to the many local authorities which have put a great deal of effort into preventing homelessness, as opposed to dealing with the problem once it arises.

Mr. Gerrard: I welcome the fall in the homelessness figures, but what effect does the Minister expect to see in respect of next year's figures as a result of the cuts in income support for mortgage payers and the caps on housing benefit? Would the Minister like to predict what effect that will have on next year's figures?

Mr. Jones: As local authorities appreciate the importance of preventive action, I certainly expect that to feed through in terms of the homelessness figures. As the rough sleepers initiative has gathered pace, and as we have managed to house those people who are willing to be housed, the problem will come down to a hard core of those who, because of drugs, mental illness or drink problems, are perhaps unwilling to be housed—unless one opts for enforced action, which raises a number of moral issues.

Mr. Hendry: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the most recent figures, which show a drop in the homelessness numbers, are sent to organisations such as Shelter? Does he not find it slightly strange that such organisations issue press releases whenever the figures are worse but have been strangely silent over the past two years while the figures have been improving?

Mr. Jones: That is reflected in the fact that Opposition Front-Bench Members' welcome for the splendid figures has also been conspicuously absent.

Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about capping criteria for the Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: I have received a number of representations about the provisional capping criteria as they affect the Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware that Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority has lost about £540,000, and Manchester more than £1 million, as a result of bungling by the Department in setting the capping criteria? What steps is the Minister taking to repair the damage and to avoid any repeat of that situation next year?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that, once a budget has been set, an authority cannot revise it upwards unless some legal point went wrong in the calculation. Having set the budget, authorities are able by definition to discharge their statutory responsibilities within it. I am considering the criteria for next year and

will consider the point that he is making about the amount by which the Tyne and Wear authority might have raised its budget, had it set it later.

Mr. O'Hara: Is the Minister aware of the danger that, because of the cap imposed by his Department on its budget, the Tyne and Wear authority might not be able to fulfil its statutory obligations under law—as laid on it by the Home Secretary—as is already the case on Merseyside?

Mr. Curry: If a local authority sets a budget within the cap, we must assume that it can discharge its statutory responsibilities. Local authorities can set a budget above the cap and tell the Government why that is necessary to discharge their responsibilities satisfactorily. A number of authorities have taken that course of action, but it was not one pursued by Tyne and Wear or Merseyside authorities.

Royal Docks, London

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution he intends to make to the development of London's royal docks.

Sir Paul Beresford: Through the London Docklands development corporation, we have invested about £400 million in major infrastructure works in the royal docks. That has triggered a number of innovative and exciting private finance initiative regeneration projects—particularly the urban village, the proposed exhibition centre and the combined heat and power energy company. All have the potential to make a major contribution to east London's economy.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disappointment at the decision not to allocate funding from the single regeneration budget for the royals university college. That and the proposals for a new international exhibition centre represent a major opportunity to regenerate east London as a whole in the way that he described. As the royals already have excellent access by road, light rail and air, through London city airport, will my hon. Friend undertake to continue the Government's role as a catalyst in realising the full commercial, academic and employment potential of the royal docks?

Sir Paul Beresford: I can reassure my hon. Friend. As I understand it, although the royal docks missed this year's single regeneration budget bid they intend to bid again next year. Perhaps my hon. Friend could help them to ensure that they win the competition next time around.

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his Department's proposals for the organisation of local government in the counties of Leicestershire and Rutland.

Mr. Gummer: I hope to be able to announce a decision very soon.

Mr. Duncan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for his continuing detailed interest in this unique decision affecting Rutland. May I invite him to


investigate whether his Department might publish its assessment of the costs and practicality of granting unitary status to Rutland?

Mr. Gummer: Rutland has almost unparalleled support for its own special nature, as I have seen in all that I have read. There are obvious problems with an area which has a population of just 33,000 or so, but we are certainly looking at the proposals—not only the commission's proposals to me, but those that my hon. Friend has put to me.

Mr. McLoughlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if unitary status is given to Rutland, many of us will want to know why district councils which are larger than Rutland and have made cases for unitary status have been denied it?

Mr. Gummer: The commission has made certain recommendations and happens to have recommended Rutland for that purpose and not my hon. Friend's excellent district council. I want to try to achieve a coherent result, and special circumstances distinguish some places from others.

Coalfield Communities Campaign

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons he declined the invitation of Councillor Hedley Salt for any Minister in his Department to address a major conference of the Coalfield Communities Campaign in London at any hour of any date of his choosing in February.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside met a delegation led by the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) only this week. I am meeting a delegation from the group led by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has met Mr. Salt on four occasions in the recent past, including a visit to his town to see the city challenge, which was partly attracted there because of the closure of mines.

Mr. Dalyell: Should it not be a high priority in the Department's strategy to face up to the appalling problem—now that so many mine pumps have gone silent—of water systems which are seriously injured?

Mr. Gummer: The list of occasions on which that and other matters have been discussed recently shows that it is a high priority. We are trying to solve the problem, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that to do so we need to balance a range of different matters. In my judgment, we are getting the balance about right.

Mr. Dobson: Although none of the Ministers at the Department could be bothered to turn up at a meeting that the Coalfield Communities Campaign was willing to organise on any date convenient to them, will the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is necessary for the Government to take immediate action to make sure that pumping continues in disused mines and is recommenced in a number of others? If not, rivers and streams in the coalfield communities—which were so badly betrayed by the pit closure programme two years ago—will be grossly polluted.
While the right hon. Gentleman is on his feet, will he also tell the House what progress is being made towards establishing the enterprise zones in the coalfield communities, which were so prominently promised two years ago and on which nothing has yet been done?

Mr. Gummer: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we are going through the detailed procedure which is necessary under European legislation. On his first point, he shows yet again that he does not know his facts and that he has not done his homework. The truth is that there is a commitment from the Government—made without any pressure from the hon. Gentleman—to carry out what he has asked for. The hon. Gentleman really ought to check his facts before he gets to his feet.

Mr. Riddick: If my right hon. Friend did attend a conference organised by the Coalfield Communities Campaign, would it not provide him with an opportunity to point out the excellent work carried out by British Coal Enterprise in creating more than 100,000 new jobs in those areas which have been hit by pit closures?

Mr. Gummer: We have been able to do that on the large number of occasions on which we have met those concerned. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who leads for the Opposition on this, is now descending to cheap jibes, and has ceased to understand the facts at all.

Environment Bill [Lords]

Ms Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received recently from environmental groups regarding the Environment Bill [Lords]; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Atkins: I have received a number of representations from a range of organisations and individuals with an interest in the Environment Bill. Most of those representations have raised subjects also addressed by amendments being discussed as the Bill makes progress through another place.

Ms Ruddock: The Minister will therefore know that all the major conservation groups—with membership now amounting to some 5 million—supported the successful amendment in another place to the definition of the purposes of national parks. Notwithstanding the pressure that the Minister will come under from those promoting noisy sports, will he give an undertaking to include the promotion of quiet enjoyment in the purposes of national parks?

Mr. Atkins: I should be interested to hear how the hon. Lady defines quiet enjoyment. That point came up during the debates in another place. If the hon. Lady had read any of the debates, she would have seen that at least one Law Lord suggested that the definition as amended is rather bad law and needs to be qualified more carefully. I should be interested to know what effect the hon. Lady feels that the promotion of quiet enjoyment currently in the Bill would have on the RAC rally, which is one of the biggest sporting events in the country and which hundreds of thousands people go to watch as it passes though national parks. If the hon. Lady wants that rally to he abolished, she is going the right way about it.

Surcharged Councillors

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances councillors can be surcharged.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Under sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the auditor has powers to declare items of account unlawful and to recover, by surcharge of those responsible, any financial loss sustained by the authority as a result of illegal action or wilful misconduct by officers or members of the authority.

Mr. Field: Has my hon. Friend heard that some of the wishy-washy Liberal Democrat councillors on the Isle of Wight are telling their electorate that they cannot possibly refuse to grant a licence for an open-air pop festival on the island this summer because they might be surcharged? Does he agree that, like the leader of their party, they have a pathological dislike of any difficult decision and that that reason is almost as much balderdash as one of their manifestos, and is completely untrue?

Mr. Jones: It certainly sounds like a Liberal cop-out to me. I am sure that my hon. Friend will put those councillors and, for that matter, their electors in touch with the legal advisers to the local authority concerned, who will be delighted to confirm that only illegal action or wilful misconduct would result in a surcharge, which therefore seems unlikely in the case that he raises.

Mr. Betts: Does the Minister accept that, if councillors engage in corrupt practices, they can be subject to criminal processes and surcharged? If he and his colleagues have evidence to support the allegations made today by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) about corruption in Labour authorities, is he not surprised that far more councils have not been surcharged over the years? Does he believe that the majority of Labour councils are corrupt, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged? If so, what evidence does he have to prove that?

Mr. Jones: Certainly they are incompetent; I do not know whether they are corrupt. The hon. Gent should note that among those providing evidence for investigation into councillors are some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Thomason: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the distribution of housing improvement grant for the purposes of gaining party political advantage, as alleged in the case of Birmingham city council, could be surchargeable?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has been campaigning strongly on that issue, has drawn attention to malpractices in Birmingham which must be investigated. I look forward with interest to the results of those investigations.

Mr. Barnes: Twenty-one councillors in Clay Cross in my constituency were surcharged in the early 1970s, before the passing of the legislation to which the Minister referred. They were surcharged not on grounds of corruption but for political decisions that they took. Ten of those were surcharged a total sum of £2,300, which could be done only by charging them jointly and severally. People in my constituency are therefore keen to

see that what is going on in Westminster and Wandsworth involving millions of pounds is properly dealt with under the law and that the surcharging provision applies.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to what I said. I specifically mentioned the case of wilful misconduct, and the hon. Gentleman knows that breaking the law deliberately is wilful misconduct. The surcharge that he mentioned arose as a result of a conviction. The hon. Gentleman proves, as many of his colleagues have done time and again, that the Labour party could not be trusted with an independent judicial system because it does not believe in the process of the courts and of finding people guilty or innocent as a result of a judicial process. Labour Members want to hang, draw and quarter people without going through any of those processes.

Water (Capital Investment)

Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of capital investment undertaken by the water industry since privatisation.

Mr. Atkins: Since 1990-91, the first full year of privatisation, the water industry's gross capital expenditure has been about £15 billion.

Mr. Ottaway: I welcome that level of investment, which certainly would not have happened under a Labour Government, but does my hon. Friend feel that it is doing enough to exert downward pressure on prices? In my constituency, Thames Water supplies water to the north of the constituency at 40 per cent. below the price at which East Surrey Water supplies it in the south of the constituency. What is he doing to encourage more competition between adjacent water companies?

Mr. Atkins: I understand my hon. Friend's problem. He will know that the matter is for the water regulator—[Interruption.] As usual, the Opposition want it both ways. If the regulator is independent, they suggest that we should attack the regulator; if it is the reverse, they say that we are interfering. The regulator has a task to fulfil. My hon. Friend has raised that point in the past. I will ensure that the regulator understands the depth of his concern and reports to me accordingly.

Mr. Tipping: If the water companies were to borrow more against their assets, could they not invest more capital and reduce water charges?

Mr. Atkins: As usual, the Labour party has got it wrong. As a result of the Government's policy of privatising water, there is now more money available to do the necessary remedial work in a wide variety of areas, the cost of which would otherwise have been borne by the taxpayer. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that his party would be prepared to spend yet more money if it were in government, I should like to know where that money would come from.

Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend compare the figure that he has just given for investment in water infrastructure since privatisation with what happened during the 1970s, when the average amount spent per year on water infrastructure decreased from £900 million to £500 million between 1974 and 1979? Does that not show


the success of privatisation in increasing investment in water infrastructure and giving everyone better water and a better system?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is quite right. He is in a position to know about the matter because, in Fleetwood in his constituency, North West Water is spending hundreds of millions of pounds to complete a sewage treatment centre which will solve some of the problems of sewage outflow on to the beaches. That is a substantial sum of money and it is indicative of the changed attitude of the water companies, now privatised, compared with their outlook under the dead hand of nationalisation.

National Rivers Authority

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what the total number of people working for the National Rivers Authority was (a) when it was first established and (b) on the latest available figures.

Mr. Atkins: At the end of March 1990, NRA. staff numbered 6,535; at the end of March 1994, the figure was 7,709.

Mr. Williams: The Minister will know that the establishment of the National Rivers Authority was supported by the Labour party and has proved a great success. Does he agree that the excellent people in pollution control will form the basis of the Environmental Protection Agency, and that their good work must continue in that agency?

Mr. Atkins: I am delighted to say that the hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The NRA and the people involved with it have done a great job. Many people involved in angling, for example, believe that the water bailiffs perform significant and important tasks along the river banks. During the progress of the Environment Bill, the Government intend to ensure that the NRA, like the other agencies to be subsumed into the new environment agency, will continue to play a very important role.

Mr. Jessel: As my constituency has more River Thames bank than any other constituency in Greater London, I can inform my hon. Friend that the River Thames is in excellent condition, which is a great credit to the National Rivers Authority and to the Government who established that agency.

Mr. Atkins: As a fellow riparian Member, with the River Ribble forming a substantial part of the boundary of my constituency, I know only too well what the NRA has achieved. I am delighted that my hon. Friend and I agree on that issue, as on so many others.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Minister recognise that there is concern within the National Rivers Authority

about the reduced level of staffing foreshadowed in the annual report published two days ago? That will do nothing to assist the National Rivers Authority in taking necessary action on the issue of abandoned mines, which was raised at the Coalfield Communities Campaign conference. We cannot address that serious issue without having sufficient staff levels in the monitoring agencies such as the National Rivers Authority.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Lady, like so many Opposition Members, believes that more people should be involved in performing those tasks than we believe is warranted. As I said to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the NRA is an extremely efficient organisation WHICH has performed extremely well over the years. It has improved its operation, increased its productivity and done the job more efficiently.
The hon. Lady's point about abandoned mines is well taken. I had a very interesting and constructive meeting with her right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip only yesterday, when we discussed those matters at some length. He agreed with me that, give or take a nuance or two, he and others support what we are trying to do.

Housing Management

Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about his plans for the application of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: We have put in place the legislative framework extending compulsory competitive tendering to housing management. The first contracts are due to be in operation from April 1996. I am pleased to say that local authorities are making good progress with their preparations.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that compulsory competitive tendering has been one of the most successful Government policies, in that it has at long last brought some common sense even to some Labour authorities? Is it not greatly to be welcomed that compulsory competitive tendering can be brought into a further sector of local authority financial operations so that we may have an improvement in the standard of housing management right across the country, even in Labour and Liberal Democrat authorities, as they will be forced to use business common sense?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I would particularly point out to him that, for the first time in years, Labour and Liberal councils are being forced to talk to their tenants about what they want in terms of standards and methods of organisation. That is one of the great successes of compulsory competitive tendering.

Points of Order

Mr. Charles Hendry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have noticed the remarkable similarity between Questions 1, 5 and 11 on today's Order Paper, and I was wondering whether by chance they might be related. During Environment questions, we might understandably turn our minds to the planting of trees and flowers, but is it not going a bit far when the only planting is that of Opposition questions? I wonder whether, during your busy day, you might have the opportunity to see how three complicated but identically worded questions came to be tabled.

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman examined the Order Paper as often and thoroughly as I do, he would find that there are many planted questions, many of which come from his side of the House.

Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today the Audit Commission published a report stating that one in three consultants with large private practices had missed 10 per cent. of their operating sessions and that was an underestimate. Health questions were yesterday. It is most convenient that the report has come out the day after Health questions. That happens again and again, and I wonder whether I could seek your help to ensure that these reports come out on the day when they are most useful to hon. Members in challenging the responses of Ministers to Health questions.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should inform the hon. Lady and the House that I have no authority whatsoever over the publication of reports. I can understand the frustrations of the hon. Lady and the House on these matters. All I can advise her to do is pursue the matter through Ministers and the Order Paper, as I am sure she will.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have seen the report in The Scotsman that the electoral registration officer in Tayside has ordered an urgent inquiry into the possible misuse and misrepresentation of postal and proxy votes in Dundee, in particular the case of a 91-year-old woman who has had her postal vote changed to a proxy vote in the name of a Labour activist to whom she gave no authorisation, and whom she did not know.

Madam Speaker: It is all a long way geographically from the Chair. Will the hon. Gentleman relate his question to my responsibilities?

Mr. Robertson: With regard to electoral matters, do you have any authority to institute an inquiry into the misuse of postal votes and vote-rigging in another Labour authority?

Madam Speaker: The Speaker of this House has no such authority.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any questions from the Government for a Transport Minister or a Scottish Office Minister to make a statement today about the lunchtime announcement by the British Railways Board of the cancellation with effect from May of the sleeper on the Motorail services to Scotland?
You will recall that, the week before last, at Question Time, the Prime Minister gave myself and the House a categorical assurance that meetings would be available to an all-party delegation to see the Secretary of State for Transport and the Prime Minister about these matters. That pledge has now been made a mockery by that grotesque breach of faith. What are Ministers going to do about it? Have they approached you to explain themselves?

Madam Speaker: I have had no indication from a Minister that they are seeking to make a statement on that matter today. I can only advise the hon. Gentleman to use the Order Paper, and to table questions to Ministers who have some responsibility in these matters, as I am sure he will do.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you assist me by telling me how I can clarify a confusion that seems to have arisen over a statement by the Director General of Ofgas, Miss Clare Spottiswoode, who told a seminar yesterday that utility regulation is flawed—too dependent on the individuals responsible for it—and that the system is weakened by the regulator's lack of accountability. Is it possible for a Minister to clarify the difficulty that has now arisen?

Madam Speaker: I have no authority over statements made by Ministers, let alone anyone outside the House.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I recognise that you cannot call a Minister into the Chamber to make a statement, but under a well-known system, Ministers can come here to be held accountable to the House for their decisions or actions. What steps can be taken by hon. Members when someone who holds a senior position in the House, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, is accused of abusing his position? Is it possible for him to come to the House, make a statement and be questioned on it, or can he remain silent on an issue involving his responsibility for issuing share options—very generously, moreover?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that Committees of the House rightly have a great deal of autonomy. It is for the Committee to take any action that it considers fit.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House for an hon. Member who intends to attack another to give notice to that Member?

Mr. McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have done so.

Madam Speaker: My goodness! My wise words are getting through.

Mr. McLoughlin: I telephoned the office of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I should add that there are four telephone numbers for him in the directory.

Madam Speaker: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has taken all possible steps. I am delighted to hear that my wise words are getting through to hon. Members.

Animal Health (European Law)

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Animal Health Act 1981 to provide that European Community law shall not interfere with the validity or legal effectiveness under the laws of the United Kingdom of any prohibitions or restrictions on the export of animals which the designated Ministers shall certify to be justified.
I am pleased to say that my Bill has cross-party support. It has Euro-sceptic support, Euro-enthusiast support, vegetarian support, meat-eating support and even meat exporting support.
Until recently, the small town of Brightlingsea was a little-known, peaceful corner of my constituency on the Essex coast. There is only one road into the town—three miles of twisting lane across a beautiful Essex valley. Brightlingsea is a close-knit community of small streets, friendly shops, good schools and a delicate economy, dependent as much on a fragile network of small indigenous employers as on employment in nearby Colchester and elsewhere on the Tendring peninsula.
The words "Brightlingsea port" give entirely the wrong impression. This is no Shoreham or Dover; Brightlingsea creek is a natural haven for small boats, dinghies and yachts. Only one small vessel can berth at the whnarf, which itself looks large and out of place. It can be reached only by driving through the heart of the town. The wharf did little trade until the export of live animals began in January this year.
I beg the House to understand the depth and strength of the reaction that the trade through Brightlingsea has provoked. Just as the convoys of 40-tonne trucks thundering down the crowded main street have shattered the peace of the town, so the issue of live exports has roused many ordinary people to anger, outrage and despair. There are some in the town who do not support the protesters, and also a large number who are sympathetic to their aims but increasingly resent the disruption and expense of the protests.
I would, however, fail in my duty as a Member of Parliament if I did not impress on the House the huge public feeling on the issue that exists in Brightlingsea. My right hon. and hon. Friends will know that, in fact, public concern extends far more widely than the places that are involved directly in the trade. All those concerned demand action from their representatives in Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hit exactly the right nomte when he met a group of Brightlingsea protesters on a recent visit to East Anglia. He said that he would "much prefer" to see animals transported in carcase form, and during Question Time on 10 January he expressed a preference for export on the hook rather than on the hoof. I agree.
I pay tribute to our Ministers who are dealing with the issue. Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his doughty Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning)—whose presence I am pleased to note—have made progress in the European Council. But even if agreement is reached, and over-long journeys and veal crates are banned under EC law, it is unlikely that implementation by other states will meet the high animal welfare standards that we expect in the United Kingdom.
It is at this point that most people feel that the United Kingdom should at least be able to implement selective bans on live exports. The anger and frustration of Brightlingsea people are, however, turned to fury when Ministers explain their powerlessness under European Community law.
My legal advice is the same as that of Ministers: we cannot apply article 36 of the treaty on European union unilaterally. Subsequent EC directives have brought it into the occupied field of EC legal competence; but this issue has, perhaps as much as any other, brought home to the British public the huge extent of the powers that Governments have signed away in Europe. They rightly feel that the argument about live exports from the United Kingdom should be settled by the United Kingdom Parliament, not left hostage to the vested interests of foreign Governments.
This Bill does not directly ban live exports—I can reassure the Minister on that point. It restores the powers of Ministers under the Animal Health Act 1981—powers that most people believe that Ministers should never have given away. I must tell the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that, even if his Protection of Calves (Export) Bill became an Act of Parliament, its failure to tackle the issue of European law would leave United Kingdom Ministers powerless to implement it. But I am grateful for the fact that he is sponsoring this Bill.
The Bill has two main elements. Clause 1 first makes it clear that the Animal Health Act 1981 may be used to impose a general export ban, and that it is not restricted merely to regulating the means and mode of export. The power to impose a ban may be exercised on the grounds of cruelty to the animals in the country of destination, not just on the grounds of suffering during the journey.
Most people would agree that this is the sort of sanction that Ministers require, to demonstrate that they are serious about ensuring that EC animal welfare legislation is properly enforced. Ministers may certify that any such export ban
is in their opinion justified for the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, notwithstanding that it may prohibit or restrict the exportation of animals to other member states and that such prohibition or restriction does not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or disguised restriction on trade between member states".
This follows the wording of article 36 of the treaty on European union. So the Bill would simply allow Ministers to exercise powers that they thought were protected by article 36 when they signed the Single European Act in the first place.
The second main element of the Bill is designed to protect Ministers' actions from possible prosecution under Community law. Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 provides that Community law shall be
recognised and available in law
in the United Kingdom. Section 2(4) of the Act provides that any future Act
shall be construed and have effect subject to
section 2(1). My Bill denies legal force under the law of the United Kingdom to any rule of Community law that would interfere with the export ban, so it becomes Parliament's express wish, if necessary, to override this part of the 1972 Act.


What is the effect of the Bill? If Ministers chose to apply an export ban on grounds of cruelty to animals in the country of destination, Parliament would have made it clear that the UK courts would be obliged to uphold UK law in the matter, against EC law if necessary. This would probably put the United Kingdom in breach of EC law. At a meeting with the Minister, her officials told me that this Act "would not work", implying that our courts would override the express wish of Parliament to exclude EC law.
If the courts fail Parliament in this regard, it will have been proved beyond dispute that parliamentary sovereignty is incompatible with continued membership of the European Community on the current basis. That in turn flies in the face of all the assurances given by Ministers about parliamentary sovereignty on the Floor of the House.
Although Parliament instructed our courts to enforce EC law in the 1972 Act, no Parliament can bind its successor. As a sovereign Parliament, we should never allow people to claim that we are powerless to enact and to enforce legislation just because it is contrary to European Union law. I doubt that any hon. Member would be happy to see Parliament being lectured by Ministry of Agriculture officials about that on which it can or cannot legislate.
The Bill restores the UK's choice to decide the live exports issue—a choice that most British people believe that this country should have. It would add authority to Government actions, because Ministers would be pursuing a policy that they could claim as their own, instead of one

forced on them. Nothing could be more corrosive to the idea of democratic accountability than to find ourselves saying that we have given away the power to decide matters for ourselves without consent or explanation, and without realising that we were doing that at the time.
Anyone who has argued in favour of a ban on live exports should feel obliged to support my Bill, as it is the only effective means of enacting a ban. I am more than a little scornful of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) for sponsoring the Protection of Calves (Export) Bill, when his reluctance to sponsor my Bill suggests that he finds the truth about the position in the EU too difficult to handle.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Sir Andrew Bowden, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. lain Duncan Smith, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Bill Olner.

ANIMAL HEALTH (EUROPEAN LAW)

Mr. Bernard Jenkin accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Animal Health Act 1981 to provide that European Community law shall not interfere with the validity or legal effectiveness under the laws of the United Kingdom of any prohibitions or restrictions on the export of animals which the designated Ministers shall certify to be justified: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 March, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

ESTIMATES DAY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1994-95

Class IV, Vote 1

Broadband Communications

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Trade and Industry Committee of Session 1993-94, on Optical Fibre Networks (House of Commons Paper No. 285); the Department of Trade and Industry Paper on Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the UK (Cm 2734); and the Department of Trade and Industry Annual Report 1995: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995-96 to 1997-98 (Cm 2804).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1995 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on support for business, research and development; consumer protection and the regulation of trade, energy related programmes, including research and development, and residual privatisation expenses; departmental administration, central and miscellaneous services; security of oil and gas supplies; the operational costs of departmental executive agencies and associated research laboratory privatisation expenses; the provision of land and building; loans, grants and other payments.—[Mr. Ian Taylor.]

Mr. Richard Caborn: I place on record my appreciation of the excellent service given by the Clerks to all Select Committees and their back-up staff, because the amount of work they do on the many good reports presented to the House sometimes goes unnoticed.
This is probably the first time that the House has had the opportunity to debate in depth the importance of the information super-highway, and to question whether Government policy is helping or hindering the development of advanced communication networks and services. Such a debate is long overdue, because the issues are of real significance to this country's future competitiveness, and they will shape the life style and work patterns of millions of people.
The information super-highway has implications for the way that the House conducts its business and hon. Members conduct their working lives. The Committee took the opportunity to undertake the first video conferencing of an official Committee of the House. I was pleased to learn that the House is planning to offer that facility, and that arrangements are under way for the House's own research network to be available on the Internet.
Our report on the super-highway was the first Select Committee report ever placed on the Internet, but not by the House authorities or the Select Committee Clerks—somebody else did us that courtesy. The House does not offer that service, but makes our report available only in hard copy form, through a limited number of outlets.
The problem is that the report is expensive. I have received several inquiries from academic bodies in particular, which want such reports made more accessible

on their databases. Government Departments and agencies were recently connected to the Internet. We called for that in our report, and I welcome that development.
A number of local authorities are also on the system, as are most large companies and universities. It is perhaps time that Hansard and Select Committee reports and other parliamentary information was also made available on Internet. The cost is minuscule, and it can only help raise the standard of the House.
The United States Congress has been on Internet for several years. I can access the Congress World Wide Web information service at any time, for the price of a local telephone call. The menu covers the full text of congressional debates and reports and judgments, as well as the e-mail addresses of Congressmen. That system might be popular with hon. Members. There is even a special mail box through which people can request information or contact a particular person.
If that is possible for the US Congress, why should it not be possible here? I have already raised that question with the Liaison Committee, and I hope that, if it comes before the House, it will be supported. I shall now return to the Select Committee report on optical fibre networks and the information super-highway, which was published last July.
The Government's response to our report took the form of a Command Paper, issued in November. Last month, there was a G7 summit on the global super-highway, and, as many hon. Members may know, the Labour party has set up its own information super-highway policy forum. The enormous interest generated by our report has certainly concentrated a few minds in the Department of Trade and Industry. Although we were disappointed by the Government's response, our report has put the issue firmly on the political agenda. There is now a widely held view that we need a nationwide network sooner rather than later. I think that the Minister will agree.
I welcome the enthusiasm that the Minister has brought to his portfolio, and I hope that it will affect Government policy. The potential for industry, jobs and leisure is vast. Our report states that broadband networks and services are likely to be critical to the competitiveness of businesses and a major factor in attracting inward investment. The report also emphasises the enormous potential social benefits for education, skills training, health care and local government services. However, getting the full benefit depends on the speed at which the highway and the new multi-media services can he developed, and on making the network as open and accessible as possible.
Our report highlights the significant benefits to industry and states that the information industry is expanding worldwide faster than anyone expected. The telecommunications industry alone is growing at such a pace that, within a few years, it will overtake Europe's motor industry in its impact on GDP. I say that to make the point that the competitive advantage of the information industry is relative, and that those countries which develop the networks and software first will corner the market.
To get investment in new broadband services requires an integrated and accessible network. The Committee's concern is that we may not get the infrastructure in place in time, and will fail to stimulate growth in new and innovative software applications.


The networks and services must develop together, and we must keep the policy of attracting new investment in both. Unlike the Americans and the Japanese, the Government are reluctant to set a target date for the super-highway. They seem preoccupied with encouraging so-called competition for local cable franchises. We should concentrate on encouraging the development of a nationwide broadband network, with maximum usage for broadband services. That is what the French, the Dutch and the Germans are doing.
Just last week, France Telecom announced that it would bring forward new investments for expanding its optical fibre network to meet the French target of a nationwide super-highway by 2015. Meanwhile, Japan and the United States have set firm target dates for connecting up all schools and hospitals by 2000 and 2010. The problem for the Government is that they cannot set any targets, because there is no certainty that the cable companies can meet them. Under current regulations, there is no incentive to push ahead anyway.
Our report argues that our regulatory system hinders the development of broadband networks and services. We could see no logic in keeping the regulatory rules which ban BT and Mercury from providing cable television. Repealing them would provide the income stream that is needed for investment in the new broadband networks and services.

Mr. Peter Hain: I think that my hon. Friend is arguing the point that British Telecom principally, and Mercury to some extent, are the only telecom operators that can provide the broadband network nationally and send fibre into every home, and that that provides the sole basis for the integrated national network that can put Britain in the lead in the super-highway. Does he agree that, unless we have that, we will lag behind competitor countries such as the United States, Japan and Germany, when in fact we invented the technology?

Mr. Caborn: That is a good point, and one on which the report concentrates. As I develop the theme, the historical context in which regulation arose will show the weakness in the application of that regulation.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is aware of my declared interest in the cablecoms industry. Is he confident that BT would have invested the £10 billion in cable networks that the cable companies are proposing to invest this century if it had not been given some regulatory confirmation that it would have a return on its capital?

Mr. Caborn: That is a hypothetical question. The Select Committee report deals with practical matters, and the situation as it is today. We have tried to develop with the cable companies and with both BT and Mercury an information super-highway for the early part of the 21st century. Therefore, no useful point would be served by answering the hon. Gentleman's question. We have tried to look forward and judge how we can best match what we have now with the cables and the PTOs, and develop that for the full information super-highway for the early part of the 21st century.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am following what my hon. Friend is saying with great interest. If we are to

achieve what the Select Committee wants us to achieve, the question of the asymmetry rule must be addressed by the Government. As I understand it, the rule will only be reviewed in the year 2001, with no guarantee that it will be changed. If it is not changed, it is clear that British Telecom will not invest the £15 billion required to put fibre into the domestic network.

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. He will find the Select Committee's answer to it as I develop my speech. I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to answer my hon. Friend's question. After all, it applies more to the Minister than it does to me.
As I was saying, we could see no logic in keeping the rules that ban BT and Mercury. The Committee asked why, when the predominantly US-owned cable companies have a privileged monopoly in our backyard, when BT tries to compete within the US it does not get equal access to the US market. That should be a matter for concern for the Government.
The entertainment ban was built into the regulation when cabling was in its infancy. At the time, there was some sense in giving fledgling British cable companies a helping hand. However, the position has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. The franchise has been sold on, and the big US cable and telecom companies seem more interested in taking on BT in the standard telephony market than in creating a national super-highway.
The Government have made some concessions at the margins to BT and Mercury, and they are welcome; however, the ban remains open-ended. The Committee would have had more sympathy with the Government's position if the cable companies were attracting a higher take-up rate for cable television and promoting new interactive services. The fact is that they are not. The penetration rate for cable take-up is currently 21 per cent.—the same as it was in 1992. In the US, it is more than 70 per cent.
In some areas, cable has not even begun. I received a letter only last week from a couple in Hackney complaining that they could not get cable television. The couple contacted the local franchise holder, Cable London, to ask when they could expect their street to be cabled up. They were told to call back some time in 1997.
Our report also pointed out our concern that the majority of cable companies were not investing in optical fibre networks, or offering new broadband services. The evidence we received—and it was pretty extensive—showed a mosaic of cable networks using mostly traditional copper or coaxial-based technologies. We could find few examples of cable companies experimenting with advanced broadband networks that have the ability to deliver interactive, two-way television.
Even if the cable companies met their build obligations in full, it would still leave more than a third of the country without access to a fixed cable network. The Select Committee felt that the scales had been tipped too far in favour of the cable companies, and that now was the time to start opening up the market by lifting the entertainment ban and by providing for open access to any cable network.
Some cable franchises have been protected for 10 years, and they could run for a minimum of another seven years. It could be even longer than that, unless policy is changed. Despite the Minister's suggestion, the Committee could find no technical or legal problem with phasing out the ban.


The way forward must be to get BT, Mercury and the cable companies to build a national network together. That can be achieved by relaxing the regulations franchise by franchise, with the aim of lifting all restrictions on BT and Mercury by end of 2002. As a quid pro qua, we recommended that BT and Mercury should be required to allow open access to their networks, and to be given the task of linking all public facilities to the super-highway as soon as possible.
The benefits of that approach are spelled out in our report. First, it would enable BT and Mercury to begin investing the £15 billion to £20 billion necessary to develop a national broadband network, without denying some protection to existing cable companies. Secondly, it would provide an incentive for cable companies to expand and upgrade their networks, both to private customers and to the public service users. Thirdly, it would create the certainty and purpose that is lacking.
The certainty is not just for telecommunications and cable companies; the problem affects the hundreds of UK firms which are supplying the technology and the software. Their concern is the long lead time they need to develop broadband technology. With the present uncertainty, those firms cannot take the risk that, in five or 10 years' time, BT may be able to start investing in broadband networks and services. We will end up having to buy the technology and equipment from United States, Japan or other countries.
Most of the cable companies said that they could live with our proposals, yet the Minister keeps telling us that the status quo is preferable, because it offers stability. The Committee could not accept that. We argued that keeping things as they are creates uncertainties. We could not accept that regulations could be changed only on competition grounds, set by the Director General of Telecommunications. That is nonsense. The creation of a national information super-highway is a policy issue with wide-ranging public interests and economic implications. It is not for the regulator to dictate the policy or to set the strategic framework. That is the Government's job.
If our proposals would thwart competition, I could understand why the regulator might want to keep things as they are, but our suggestion implies more, not less, competition. We argued that the phased lifting of the entertainment ban and opening up the markets franchise by franchise would provide for more open access under an integrated network.
The idea that ring-fencing local cable monopolies will lead to competing national networks with open access to anyone does not add up. For a start, the competition is not there, and if the entertainment ban stays, it is unlikely to emerge. Even if we end up with competing national networks, which has as much strategic logic as competing rail networks, we should ensure that parity and equality of access exist. Are we not in danger of creating a piecemeal, multi-tiered highway of local networks that deny universal service and customer choice?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): I shall pick up the points that the hon. Gentleman is making when I speak later, but I must ask him a specific question. If there is so much wrong with the Government's policy, why has the European Union adopted—belatedly—the same principles? Why were we able to establish the principles

of liberalisation and competition in relation to, among other things, alternative infrastructures as part of the G7 conference's conclusions?

Mr. Caborn: Trying to liberalise the market and develop third-party access is to be welcomed. The Select Committee challenged the Minister about why we are protecting the cable companies for a now indeterminate length of time, possibly well into the 21st century. Our major PTOs—BT and Mercury—should be allowed to enter the entertainment market. The central question concerns the regulatory regime. The Committee argued for liberalisation of the market and third-party access and, as the Minister knows, the quid pro quo was that BT and Mercury open up to the cable companies.
What confounded some members of the Committee was that, although this is the Government of competition and open markets, we have to ask them to introduce competition by phasing in the lifting of the franchise. Only the Government do not accept the idea but I have no doubt that, with his enthusiasm for his new post, the Minister will change that.

Mr. Stephen Timms: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we need above all in interactive broadband communications is innovation, but that the monopoly arrangements introduced by the Government, whereby there is to be one franchise holder for an indefinite period, will not lead to that innovation?

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Select Committee expressed the same concern, and suggested ways out of the present regulatory system, which would lead to the conditions under which such innovation could occur.
Access—public and private—is extremely important. It is essential that we develop a national network that provides open access for public and private service users. If we do not, I fear that we run the risk of an information society for the haves, with no access for the have-nots.
The Select Committee set out to deal with two key questions. Are the Government doing enough to develop the super-highway that we shall need by the turn of the century, and are the policies and regulations flexible enough to ensure that we are moving fast enough relative to our major competitors? On both counts, the Committee concluded that the Government must think again. We warned of the cost of delaying and dithering any longer.
The Select Committee recommended a compromise solution with which the telecom side and the cable industry said they could live. They want an end to uncertainty, and they want the Government to stop procrastinating. We emphasised in our report that the situation has changed dramatically since the cable franchises and the entertainment ban were introduced. Government policy, and the regulations, should reflect that.
There is still time to act, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to follow through the main recommendations in the report.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly. I have been away in the United States and was not aware that this debate was being held today. I found myself in the embarrassing position of having a commitment to chair a meeting


elsewhere in the House at 4 pm, which is why I absented myself during part of the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I apologise; my absence was not intended as a discourtesy, and I shall certainly read his speech in Hansard.
It is sad that there does not appear to be as much interest in this subject in the House as there would be if the debate were taking place in a school or college. The young understand the importance of the Internet and the super-highway. I have to ask my 22-year-old son for advice on the use of computers, or, better still, my 18-year-old son—both are experts. The young are well seized of the importance of this subject. They understand its significance and the fact that it will change their way of life and how they work. Those of us who are rather older are finding it more difficult to adjust to the world of computers and the world of the Internet.
I first found myself becoming involved in the general subject when, as a Minister responsible for industry in Northern Ireland, I discovered a European proposal to lay a fibre-optic link around Northern Ireland in 1987. It seemed quite interesting, and that it would provide better communications. I was told that it would provide "more bandwidth, Minister" and I had to find out what bandwidth meant. I discovered that it meant the opportunity to use more and more electronic and electrical devices on the cable system which was to be laid around Northern Ireland.
Later, we were among the first in Northern Ireland to use video conferencing—on a secure network between Whitehall and Belfast. The object of the exercise was, in fact, to save money, because Ministers were running up such enormous bills for transport between London and Belfast.
I rapidly discovered that if one wished to make a point to one's own Secretary of State, one could not make it while sitting alongside him. One needed to make that point from the other end of the video conferencing facility. I rapidly developed the habit of flying to the other end to have a video conference with my Secretary of State, rather than driving up the hill to Stormont. Be that as it may, I still think that the system is worth while and will certainly develop.
In October 1989, I was approached to become chairman of a company which applied for cable communications franchises. I accepted. We were awarded five franchises. Subsequently, after various discussions about our future with different companies, we decided on a very happy marriage with NYNEX Cablecomms, and I declare an interest as a director of companies in the NYNEX group.
What is broadband, what is bandwidth, and what can it do? First, of course, with bandwidth, people can talk to each other—so it is a telephone. One can send people messages—so it is a fax. One can watch programmes—so it is a television. One can talk to people and see them at the same time—so it is video conferencing. One can work from one's own house or building by communicating with others—so it is an office. One can sell things by promoting them across it—so it is a showroom. One can buy things through it—so it is a shop. One can carry out financial transactions through it—so it is a bank.
Those are all single interactions between, as it were, one person and another, but on the Internet, with broadband, one can do so much more. For instance, several people can join together in the same discussion from different parts of the world, so it can create a design laboratory.
In the past few weeks, I have seen two powerful examples of the use of cable and bandwidth. The first, the beautifully named Super-JANET, the super joint academic network, will enable advanced academic groups to link and talk to each other. I certainly have high hopes that the sixth form college in my constituency, of which I am chairman, will be able to link up with local cable communications, and, perhaps, in Gosport in the south of England, be able to listen to lectures given in Manchester or in the centre of England. All such developments will come.
Last week in Washington, at the Walter Reed hospital, we were shown facilities whereby medical signals and photographs may be sent by British forces in Belize to the hospital where, in Washington, American doctors may form a diagnosis and advise local people in Belize of the best treatment for the patient. Advanced communications can do so many things.
I am certainly convinced that the key to success is in the Command Paper, where it says:
The spur to all this progress—
which it described—
was the original decision to liberalise infrastructures and services.
BT was privatised in 1984, and very few people now, even the most extreme socialist Members, would say that BT would have made as much progress had it stayed in public ownership.
Then we moved on to the duopoly review, and the 1991 White Paper entitled "Competition and Choice Telecommunications Policy for the 1990s". That allowed cable companies to offer voice telephony in their own right. The key to that is that BT is prevented from conveying entertainment until 2001, with a review in, or not earlier than, 1998, and is prevented from providing entertainment services until 2001.
Those restrictions on BT have enabled cable companies to enter the business.
From my experience, I can tell the House that when my company was in the business of trying to raise funds for cable telecommunications development, we approached a very wide range of British institutions, but I am afraid that the interest was negligible. I regret that. I am happy that American, French and Canadian companies have been prepared to invest here, but it is most unfortunate that British companies are not very well represented—with, of course, the notable exception of Cable and Wireless and its affiliate Mercury. There would not have been a commitment to cable development if the Government had not laid down restrictions on BT. Those restrictions are absolutely critical.
The cable companies will spend £10 billion this decade. Because of the diversity of provision, I am confident that that will provide an ideal fibre-optic network throughout the United Kingdom. It will provide the basis upon which development will take place. It will not be the Government-controlled and dictated fibre-optic network which would be so attractive to some hon. Members. It will not be the Government-planned system which will


take fibre optics into every part of the United Kingdom, because it will be based entirely on competition and the opportunities of the companies involved to make profits.
I am convinced that the cable companies are making an enormous contribution. They are providing 30,000 jobs, and I believe that the way ahead now is as set out by the Government. I respect the Command Paper, in which I know the Minister is closely involved. I also respect the Government's point of view, and I am delighted that the Minister has taken such a keen interest in the matter and that he is driving the issue forward.

Mr. John McWilliam: I should like to preface my remarks by declaring an interest. I am proud to say that I am sponsored by the Communication Workers Union, which is the amalgamation of the old National Communications Union and the Union of Communications Workers. This is the first occasion on which a member of our group has been able to declare that interest in the House. I also declare an interest as a director of EURIM. That position is totally unpaid and without any expenses.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), all members of the Trade and Industry Select Committee and the Clerks and specialist advisers on the most important contribution that they have made to the debate. This debate is vital to the economic well-being of this country into the next century, and its impact has been largely ignored by the Government. I notice the paucity of Conservative Members present. I welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), although I did not entirely agree with his comments. As he has known me for an awful lot of years, he will not be surprised about that.
We must consider where we are now, look at the kind of information super-highway we need and see how we can get there from our current position. The Select Committee made a major contribution to that end, but the Government must have a much clearer idea of the nature of competition, the customer, the provider and how the system operates.
It was clear from the Minister's intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central that his understanding of the Bangemann report and what the G7 summit came up with, and my understanding of that, are somewhat different. I do not believe that the G7 summit dreamt up the asymmetry rule to which my hon. Friend referred. Indeed, the Bangemann report recommends against that. I do not believe that the G7 summit recommended that our market should be so dominated by foreign and American companies, although it is.
How have we reached this point? I have been privileged to serve on every telecommunications Bill since 1979. I have been involved in all the debates. We reached the current position because a Secretary of State made a fundamental mistake. He thought that the competition was in the network and not in what could be provided on that network. That is where the real competition always resides.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: My hon. Friend is an expert on these matters. Does he agree that the asymmetric rule has caused havoc in many constituencies, as companies such as CableTel in my

constituency tunnel through and churn up pavements without any regard to consultation with our constituents? Such companies are wreaking havoc as they are not properly reinstating the pavements and roads that they have dug up. Could not that have been avoided if the Government had adopted a more sensible policy?

Mr. McWilliam: I agree. One of the problems is that the cable companies are there to sell cable time and not to install cables. They largely employ casual labour to install the cables, and sometimes the skills of the casual labour are not up to the level that they ought to be. Indeed, I have seen instances in my constituency of a subcontractor shoving a mole drainer through the roots of many trees. As a noted horticulturist, my hon. Friend will understand the effects of that.
If the Government had recognised where the competition was in the first place, we would not have had that situation, but because of political dogma at the time, they decided that they knew best and that it was in the network. We know that that is not true.
We have to consider the sort of highway that we want. Unlike most cable company networks, it has to be two way and it has to be broadband. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central said, one of the problems with many local cable company networks is that they are a mixture of twisted pair, coaxial and fibre. What is more, hon. Members must be aware that there is more than one kind of fibre, and that fibres have more than one sort of capacity.
There is also more than one way of switching the network. I want to make certain that I stay within the constraints of intelligibility, so I shall not go into network architecture in any great detail. What most cable companies have adopted as the network architecture, however, delivers the minimum bandwidth to the customer, not the maximum—that is not a national broadband network.
The network has to be national and must offer services in cities and rural areas. Given the present situation, the cable companies are not capable of doing so and there is no intention whatever of cabling the rural areas—one third of the United Kingdom—so the existing network will not lead to a national network.
There are constraints; some are Government-imposed and some are not. There are the technological constraints that I just described, which are due to the network architecture that cable companies have adopted, and there are the technological constraints that are due to the fact that all the cable companies have not adopted the same technology. Some of the fibre could be incorporated in a network, but some could not.
We must not be dogmatic about this, either. The hon. Member for Gosport talked of renationalising British Telecommunications, but it is not a question of that—it would cost far too much, and no one on the Opposition Benches is arguing for it. We have to study our national communications carriers, such as BT and Mercury and the international companies, such as BT and Cable and Wireless, to find out whether we are serving our industrial interests throughout the world.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I hesitate to intervene, as my hon. Friend is a great expert on this subject, but is it not the case that, if one compares BT and the present cable suppliers—the incomers, as I would call them, as I come from Yorkshire—one sees that BT has a


great record of purchasing equipment from British suppliers? Is it not the case that, for all we were told 10 years ago—that, if we waited for fibre optics, which was a British invention, we would make it in Britain—the majority of the equipment purchased by the cable companies is imported from other countries?

Mr. McWilliam: In essence, that is true, in that many of the switches are imported. BT no longer purchases as much British equipment as it did, although it still purchases a great deal.

Mr. Sheerman: What about the cable?

Mr. McWilliam: No, it is not true. Most of the fibre optic cable is manufactured by BICC, which has the rights, and the copper cable also tends to be British, but much of the technology is not British and is not compatible with the existing network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central was right to refer to the ownership of the cable companies. Ninety per cent. of cable companies are owned by United States telephone multinationals, at least one of which has a larger asset base than BT. Those are the very companies with which BT and Cable and Wireless are competing worldwide for a share of the telecommunications business. At the same time, British firms are not allowed into the markets in those countries.
We could almost describe that as industrial treason. The Government have legislated to allow companies into our market from countries that will not allow us into their market. They are destroying the profitability of our companies and their ability to invest worldwide and compete against those other companies.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I hesitate to intervene, as I shall pick up many of the hon. Gentleman's points later, but I cannot let him get away with that. Because of our action in opening up the United Kingdom market, British companies now have a better chance of getting into the American market than most of our European rivals. Vice-President Gore announced at the G7 conference that, one way or another, America would remove by the end of this year the 20 per cent. embargo that relates to foreign investment in United States telecommunications companies using spectrum radio, as long as the countries from which new investors are to come have liberalised. This country stands in very good stead in that reciprocal agreement. The opportunities in America—as well as in the rest of Europe, once it has liberalised —will be open to British-based companies.

Mr. McWilliam: The Minister is as innocent of American politics as he is of where the telecommunications market is. He knows as well as I do that Vice-President Gore will have to get that liberalisation through both Houses in the States.

Mr. Taylor: No.

Mr. McWilliam: He will, and it will be blocked.

Mr. Taylor: Vice-President Gore said in Brussels that his Administration would bring forward legislation that would need to get through both Houses, but that if there

was a problem, he would do it by regulation. Therefore, he could give a guarantee that America would change the rule this year.

Mr. McWilliam: First, the American system is geared to kill legislation, not to facilitate it, like ours. Secondly, if the Vice-President thinks that he will get that measure through, he has got another think coming. He will not do it, because there are too many vested interests in too many states. Those might have been fine words for the G7 and they might have been quite helpful, but all Vice-President Gore is interested in is making sure that the Americans develop their own super-highway. It is not really in America's interests for Britain to develop our own.
We have a problem in that we have no access to the United States, despite the fact that the Minister says that Vice-President Gore will give us that access by the end of the year. I shall believe that when I see it. We have problems with access to Japan—one of our major competitors, which is developing its system—and to Germany, which is developing a system on the back of a national system. Britain has a fragmented system, with the asymmetry rule.
I shall give the Minister a statistic. The average telephone line in this country is used for six minutes a day. That is all. Nobody is going to put a fibre-optic link into a house for a line that is used for six minutes a day. The existing cable network is not capable of supporting a super-highway, and the —10 billion of investment that has been referred to will not support the information super-highway. The existing system was not designed for that, and it will not support it.
The only company that has the asset base to support the investment needed is British Telecom, because we are talking about an investment of some —15 billion. That will be the cost of just getting the local fibre-optic network in. In order to get universal coverage in the UK, the Government would have to make some other changes. They would have to drop the asymmetry rule, and they would also have to let British Telecom have radio tails on terminal ends in rural areas, because there is no other way of operating the system economically. That is another bar against BT.
The Government must allow BT and Mercury to carry entertainment services, as that is the only way in which that investment could be justified. Last year, BT's profit was —3 billion, which was reduced by —500 million because of the regulator's formula on pricing. An investment of —15 billion could not be supported on a commercial basis on that profit. The only way to proceed is to open up the market.
If we are to compete against the United States, Japan, Germany and other European Union partners, which we must as we approach the next century, we must have that information super-highway. We cannot have it with the dogmatic approach that the Government have adopted since 1979, so we must have a new approach. Oddly enough, the new approach is to free up the system rather than tell the cable companies that they cannot extend their customer base. The Government must lift the restrictions on BT and Mercury and allow them to sell entertainment services on their main network, too. Those companies could then justify to their shareholders the investment of —15 billion, which needs to be made into the next century to set up that super-highway. That is the only way in which that will happen.


I have taken enough of the House's time, as other hon. Members want to speak. This is an extremely important debate and I congratulate the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on its thorough approach to this subject. I respect the Minister's knowledge of and enthusiasm for this subject, but he must convey to his political masters the idea that the competition is not in the network but in what can be put on the network: entertainment, education and health services; business applications; and teleworking. He must also convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment the fact that the project entails a view of employment patterns in this society that must be dealt with before it comes in, so that we know where jobs will be lost and gained, and protection for teleworkers is built in.
Unless the Minister does those two things, we shall not have the super-highway that we need to take us into the next century and we shall be unable to support the economic development that we need to provide for people's services, welfare and health.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. I apologise to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) for not being present to hear all his speech. I attended to my duties as a member of the Committee of Selection for 10 minutes in the middle of his speech, but I undertake to remedy that by reading it in tomorrow's Hansard.
I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and its Chairman on the work that they have done. I also congratulate the Liaison Select Committee on selecting this extremely important subject for debate, which has implications for our industrial, economic, educational and domestic future.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said about the services that the House of Commons has supplied through its parliamentary data and video network, and the use or otherwise that Hansard makes of electronic means of communications. It is essential that the House takes a lead in providing the infrastructure necessary not just for Members of Parliament to do their business more efficiently, cost effectively and faster, but to give a lead and show the worlds of commerce, industry and education that we attach importance to that new method of communication and are prepared to lead by example.
The PDVN should be developed faster and Hansard should make the information that it contains more freely and widely available by electronic means. I recognise the Minister's enthusiasm for the subject. He does good work and I know that he must win the arguments within the Department and the Treasury to further this matter. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to examine electronic access to the PDVN and Hansard, as well as some of the other important aspects of the Select Committee's report.
Hon. Members are always a little sceptical when Ministers inform the House that they are about to work miracles and deliver more services at lower cost. In most instances, that proves to be untrue. However, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) referred to the

extraordinary British invention of fibre-optic technology, which offers us the chance to improve services and save money at the same time.
I will concentrate on opportunities for education in the first half of my speech because I believe that education in the United Kingdom could become more responsive, flexible and probably cheaper in the long term by deploying the latest technology sensibly and by using the emerging information infrastructure.
Some right hon. and hon. Friends and I were fortunate to spend a few days in Washington about 10 days ago. During that visit, the leader of my party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), had a long and stimulating conversation with the American Vice-President, Mr. Al Gore. As a result of the meeting, it became crystal clear that America is in the driving seat of information technology. There is a commitment within high levels of Government to ensure that America progresses across the different sectors within that technological area. If we are to keep the advantage that we have in many areas of technology, we must secure that same commitment at the same levels of Government in this country. That would be disastrous for both the United Kingdom and for Europe as a whole.
Interactive learning systems, including access to electronic libraries, will clearly revolutionise the way in which future generations are educated. It will become easier for individuals to explore, in their own time and in their own way, the subjects in which they are interested and perhaps develop that interest into a career.
We hear anecdotes and we read stories in the press about people who have otherwise dropped out of society but who have gone to cafes, surfed the Internet and have become experts in that area. In America we heard about people in Chicago, for example, who have accessed the library connections to Internet. They have become technological experts because they have engaged their interests and used their time to gain experience in retrieving information from the Internet, which—as those of us who have tried it will know—can often prove quite frustrating.
The Department for Education and parents must work together to define what they want to achieve to deliver a new educational philosophy for the future. As a nation, we must have training for life and I think that the optic-fibre network and the information super-highway will form an integral part of that training.
We must compete with technology from the Pacific basin, America and other parts of the world. In order to stay competitive, we must generate wealth, which involves cultivating an educated work force and an educated society. There is a little of the chicken-and-egg syndrome in that situation, but Liberal Democrats are quite clear about how we would break into that cycle. We would concentrate on education and invest in the future of the nation, thereby providing the wealth that we need. We do not believe that we can leave everything to the market.
I agreed wholeheartedly with that part of the speech of the hon. Member for Blaydon which I heard. I concur with what he said about excluding the British players, BT and Mercury, from participating in building communications infrastructure. I think that his argument is sound, and I hope that the Government will pay careful attention to it. We may agree in five or 10 years' time,


with the benefit of hindsight, that it was a monumental mistake to exclude the British players, and that banning them from broadcasting entertainment services until the year 2000 or 2001 in order to encourage inward investment from overseas companies was at best unwise, and at worst positively idiotic.
Excluding the British players certainly gave the American companies more than a head start, but it has been much worse than that. The American companies have cherry-picked the most lucrative areas of the country, establishing their own local monopolies, typically in cities and towns and digging up roads and pavements with little regard to the trees that lined avenues. They have left a patchwork effect instead of being required to reinstate the full width of pavements, giving local residents a benefit for the disruption caused. That may seem a small matter when we are contemplating the future of the super-highway, but it is important for the residents who are affected.
The infrastructure is not touching huge areas of Britain. The American companies regard the rural and sparsely populated parts of Britain as economically much less desirable than towns and cities. In the borders, for example, we are stuck between, to the north, Edinburgh, which is being cabled by United Artists, and, to the south, Newcastle, which is being cabled by United Artists. We are piggy in the middle.
Courtesy of Scottish Telecom, a 64 KB pipe goes through St. Boswells and Coldstream. In order to remain competitive and get access to proper broadband services that would suit the needs of commerce, industry and education, we would need at least a 2 MB fibre-optic cable. We are unlikely to have that, so there is no immediate prospect of the population in the borders having access to that level of infrastructure.
Al Gore is absolutely right. If we are not careful, and if the Government do not get their planning right, we shall end up with a society of information haves and have-nots. There is a great deal of concern in my party, which represents rural areas, many of which are disparately populated, that, if it is left to the market, those areas will never have access to a proper system of infrastructure. If the Minister is about to tell me I am wrong, I shall be >delighted.

Mr. Ian Taylor: It is a matter of great concern to many people. In very rural areas, the answer is not necessarily simply to replicate the cabling that is installed in more urban areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are now looking very much more at further release of the radio spectrum to provide access to rural areas. I am sure that he will be delighted about that for Scotland, as and when we can announce the next stage.

Mr. Kirkwood: Of course I recognise that a great deal of front-line, leading-edge technological work is being done in radio transmission and communication. I welcome that because it opens up opportunities that rural areas otherwise would not have.
The market will not offer an incentive for companies to move into areas such as south-east Scotland, where there are two or three times as many sheep as there are people and households. The Government are right to say that commercial forces have a part to play, but there must

come a time at which the really disparate areas such as the highlands and the south-east and south-west of Scotland and parts of Wales benefit from active positive discrimination by central Government, if it is necessary. If, as a result of this evening's discussion, the Minister could tell me that if all else fails the Government will consider dealing with that problem by plugging that gap, I would be reassured.
BT and Mercury have been crying out for the chance to create a truly national infrastructure and I understand that BT is prepared to put up £15 billion of its own money. As there is no need for taxpayers' money, I do not see what the Government have against that. We are in serious danger of missing an opportunity if we do not allow it to happen.
What should the Government do? First, they should allow BT and Mercury to re-enter the market. Secondly, because of the educational importance of the subject, the Government should commit themselves to a project to link every school, college and library to a national super-highway more widespread than Super-JANET, which has been a brave and relatively successful attempt to link universities. Thirdly, and finally, the Government should provide some guarantee of their commitment to ensuring that rural areas are not left behind.
Some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), would agree with Mr. Newt Gingrich and give everyone on income support a laptop. That is a slightly strange idea in some ways; but at least Newt Gingrich and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham recognise the importance of such infrastructures to our future, and of motivation, commitment and vision. That is probably the only resemblance between them.
Today's children will need technological skills if they are to obtain jobs. Technology is invading the workplace, and it will invade the home as well. My party has produced a policy that we consider coherent, which is contained in a document entitled "As Far as the Eye Can See". I recommend it to the Government.
I hope that the Minister's response will be positive. I congratulate the Select Committee on a very good report, which has given us an opportunity to engage in an important debate.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on his report, and on the interesting debate that has resulted from it. I believe that many people outside will also find the debate interesting.
Perhaps it is a coincidence that the Back-Bench committee that I chair chose today for a demonstration of the Internet, which is to take place in my office at 6 pm. Hon. Members may wish to go to my office—which is at 3 Dean's yard—at that time, or perhaps at 7 pm, when the debate has ended. The demonstration is to take place there because the House is so technologically backward that it is impossible to find a Committee Room in which to hold a demonstration of the Internet.
One Committee Room—Committee Room 15—has an integrated services digital network line. In the past, I have booked that room with the full co-operation of the Serjeant at Arms and, at the last minute, have been told that I must use Committee Room 14, Committee Room


21 or some other room that has no ISDN line. That makes any demonstration of the Internet impossible. The Minister smiles; I am sure that he understands my frustration. I think that many people would like to see what the Internet can do, so I have decided to go ahead with the demonstration—but, as I have said, it will take place in my office rather than in the main building.
My constituency is fortunate, in that it could be described as "wired up". It contains a very good cable company, Cambridge Cable, which has installed fibre-optics throughout the city and is now beginning work on some of the surrounding area in East Anglia. Of course, we also have an excellent university, which has promoted fibre-optic cable and has been one of the main proponents of the JANET and Super-JANET networks. An on-line media experiment is currently being conducted in some homes in the Cambridge area, allowing people to choose educational and video services.
I am conscious, however, that not all my constituents have access to the new technology. I have therefore tried to convene a small group to work in the city, examining ways of providing access for a much wider range of people than those who can afford the modems and computers that they will need in their own homes to gain access to the technology. We have devised an on-line city project, involving city and county councillors and a number of other agencies.
They will consider the provision of information that is socially useful rather than commercially useful. I refer to housing transfer lists, bus timetables, advice on benefits and other information to which ordinary people would like access. We intend to put in a number of installation points in libraries, community centres, schools, shopping centres and the shopping concourse in Addenbrooke's hospital, because those are the sorts of places where we think it best for people to get access to the Internet and the information on it.
This is a continuing experiment, and an important one. It illustrates the principle of universality, which is one of the most important principles that we have to work on. We must ensure that we do not end up with an elite, intellectual group of people who have access to this information via new technology and an underclass deprived of the educational and employment opportunities and other benefits that new technology can bring.

Mr. McWilliam: Bearing in mind the severe weather of the past few weeks and the geography of large parts of this country, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of the super-highway—teleworking—means that people who are cut off at home because they live in rural areas and cannot come into the cities can work at home and need no longer be cut off?

Mrs. Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Many people will welcome the prospect of more teleworking, but it has disadvantages too. Many people work for the social contact, so we shall have to wait and see how that aspect resolves itself. There are advantages and disadvantages to working remotely.
I am perhaps one of the few hon. Members to have a large proportion of constituents who are wired up. I reckon that about 20,000 of my 70,000 constituents have access, in one way or another, to the Internet. About 15,000 people are wired up via the university and have access to electronic mail; I estimate that at least another

5,000 who work in high-tech industries and in small consultancies from home have such access too, so it has been easy for me to take advantage of the new technology.
Since I started using electronic mail, I have found that about 10 per cent. of my correspondence comes to me in that form. I must inform the House, however, that that does not give me any more time to read the mail than when it comes the usual way in the form of hard copy.
I have also had the opportunity of taking advantage of some of the news groups. Cambridge is fortunate in having its own news group, where I can post views and receive views publicly from some of my constituents. I am pleased to announce that I now have my own home page. I apologise in advance for the gobbledegook, but my code is: http://www.worldserver.pipex.com/anne.campbell/. I hope that everyone will use it to read up on my career and to peruse my constituency newsletters—not to mention learning about my activities in the House.
I have also taken advantage of electronic mail by becoming the first hon. Member to hold an electronic mail surgery. So far I have held about five of them. They have all been heavily used; there is always a great deal of interest in these events. It is difficult to predict the questions that my constituents will ask by electronic mail at advice surgery times. Some people are puzzled and ask, "Why don't you answer e-mail at any time, instead of only between 5 pm and 6.30 pm on Friday?" I am sure that hon. Members understand that it is not easy to respond quickly to electronic or other mail. At least my constituents know that, at a fixed time every month, I am sitting at my terminal ready to respond to their queries as they arise.
That technology has enormous implications for democracy. Several hon. Members spoke about making Hansard available on the Internet, which would be of enormous advantage. Why not make hon. Members' voting records available on the Internet? Why not give constituents the chance to respond to the way in which hon. Members vote or to the remarks that they make? Why not make us more accountable and open to questioning from our constituents?
A few months ago, I asked questions of every Government Department to ascertain the extent to which they were using the Internet and whether or not I could send them e-mail. I know that the Minister has an e-mail address and although I have not taken advantage of that facility yet I am sure that I shall do so.
It would be a great advantage to send to Ministers the sort of e-mail that I receive. I know that I am not allowed to use visual aids in the Chamber, but in waving this piece of paper about, the Minister will appreciate that this is one of seven e-mail messages that I received today, and it is quite lengthy. The only way in which I can provide a copy to a Minister is to produce a printout and a photocopy, attach that to another letter, place them in an envelope and post them.
That is rather tedious and I would rather simply press a button, to pass on e-mail to whichever Minister is destined to receive it—and obtain an answer in the same way that I can post on. My constituents might then ask whether there is any point having a Member of Parliament who just acts as a Minister's post box, and they might start sending their electronic mail to the Minister direct. It is impossible for us to predict future developments and


the way in which they will change our work in the House. However, I am sure that those changes will be far-reaching and profound.
There is a healthy debate in my party at present about the use of encryption on the Internet, which has in turn generated discussion among some news groups. We well understand that some users want their privacy respected, and that others need unforgeable signatures. I am seriously considering that myself because it would be potentially dangerous for someone to be able to forge a Member of Parliament's signature on the Internet. We are beginning to come to terms with such issues and to devise policies, but we need time to form a considered view. I am sure that the debate about encryption will continue.
I want to talk also about the importance of the Internet and the super-highway in education. I was interested to read on the front page of The Times Educational Supplement last week about a Department of Trade and Industry project called "Schools on Line". It is expected to cost about £7.5 million and a pilot is to be launched in June in about 60 schools. I gather that the project will link some schools to the Internet through ISDN lines provided by British Telecom.
The project was not entirely news to me because I had heard about it from various contacts in education before I read about it. I understand that when the Secretary of State for Education heard of the DTI's grandiose plans, in the words of my informant she went ballistic because she did not think that this was a good time to put extra money into schools when the Government had been unable to find money to fund the teachers' pay award. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
It is obviously desirable, if not essential, to put schools on line as soon as possible. There should not just be one line inside the front door. We must think about how to provide infrastructure in each school so that every classroom can have access to the Internet. Such a project will not be inexpensive: it will require a great deal of resources. I realise, as do all my hon. Friends, that it cannot be done quickly but must be planned and that there must be a strategic framework for seeing how it will develop.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Obviously, I cannot comment on newspaper headlines; the hon. Lady will have to wait for formal announcements. It is important to understand that in working with industry the DTI is obviously keen to encourage industry to produce projects for schools. In that sense, we are reinforcing the Department for Education announcement in January of a £3 million scheme to encourage industry to present ideas. I especially welcome the pledge by the Cable Communications Association to wire up every school in franchise areas with optical fibres.

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister for that information. It is encouraging to know that Ministers are thinking along those lines. However, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will say later in the debate that the universality principle is just as important in schools as it is in homes. The way forward must be planned, to ensure that people will not be disadvantaged because a cable company does not have a franchise in their area.
The use of the information super-highway in education is a most exciting and forward-looking idea, and it could do a great deal to raise standards in education. It is

important for us to get there first, because that will give our children enormous advantages over students in other parts of the world.
I should like to put in a word for two organisations that have been particularly helpful and useful in promoting that kind of education. One is the National Council for Educational Technology. It has pioneered some miraculous and imaginative schemes, which have done a great deal to point the way to raising standards. The other organisation is the BBC, which over the years has set an excellent example in educational broadcasting without which our schools would have been much poorer.
The real challenge for the future is to determine how the BBC can be financed so that it can go on providing that core of educational work, which is vital to schools. In future, the licence fee may not be an appropriate way to do so, because at the moment it covers a television set, and those who do not have sets do not pay the fee. In future those with computers may have to pay the licence fee because two or even three technologies—the computer, the television set and the telephone—may be combined in a single piece of equipment. How to ensure that the BBC continues to be an excellent provider of vital information for our schools and citizens is an exciting challenge.

Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for reasons that I shall shortly explain. I apologise for not being present for the start of the debate. However, hon. Members may be pleased to know that, thanks to the improvement of communications in the House, I have heard every speech in the debate from the comfort of 1 Parliament street. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on his speech, which dealt with his Committee's report. I am willing to be quizzed by any hon. Member as to whether I heard his speech. The only part of the debate I missed was during the minute that it took me to go from 1 Parliament street to the Chamber.
For reasons that I shall explain, I had not intended to speak in the debate. I decided to do so after hearing hon. Members' speeches, because they prove that this debate is most useful. It has touched off two themes in my mind, which I am keen to put to the House. I welcome what the hon. Member for Cambridge said, because, as chairman of the parliamentary and scientific committee, I can tell her that much of what she said bears on the convergence of technology, which is causing us to look at structures in the Commons and the Lords as we consider how to address our minds to the real technological changes that we face on a personal level.
As chairman of the parliamentary information technology committee and the parliamentary space committee, I can tell the House that we had to address our minds to that. There is also the cable and satellite group. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will address some of those changes because some aspects of technology and the opportunities for British industry are the themes that I should like to address.
Much of the debate has touched upon the consumer, the user of technology. As I said, the new technologies present opportunities for British industry. In the context of the user, I was pleased to hear so many references to


Internet. Those of us who had opportunities at college, university or elsewhere to see Internet in action appreciate that it has made considerable headway. The hon. Member for Cambridge made that her major theme, and she was right to suggest that it could present opportunities, but also a major challenge.
Over the past 20 years in this place, the growth of contact with Members and the weight of paper upon us have become major problems. Would electronic mail help to solve them, or would it add to them? Will instant access mean that we shall reflect the views of lobbies that are geared to high tech in a way that might lead to staffing implications? That is an open question, but we shall have to address it as more and more hon. Members come to terms with modern technology.
I said that I shall concentrate on the opportunities for British industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has sought to raise the public profile of information technology in this field. He gave a press conference on earth observations, which touched on aspects of agriculture and on the opportunity for more effective monitoring of the common agricultural policy, an issue that is near to all our hearts. I believe that he has in mind similar sessions with the media in respect of communications and putting the case for our space industry, for which there are major opportunities in Europe and further afield.
I encourage the Minister to say a word or two about raising the profile of what is happening in communications across the broadband network and through satellites. With convergence, Britain's expertise in the field and the prospect of liberalisation within Europe, to which he referred, we should be able in Europe and further afield to take the opportunity to promote British companies that have expertise not only in cable but in satellites. Behind that, it is true that we have a world lead in software. With the coming together of the Government and hon. Members with an interest in the area, there are many opportunities that could be to our national benefit.
I am grateful for having had the opportunity to say a few words on the issue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to respond to the points that I have raised—if not now, perhaps in more detail later or in writing if he wants to give the matter further consideration.
The Select Committee report has given us a welcome opportunity to bend our minds to the real challenge of the future, the opportunities for industry and the way in which each and every hon. Member will be working over the next several years.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the debate. He is a new Minister, who has been widely spoken of as someone who will take a new and dynamic view.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on the Select Committee report that was published in July 1994. It is certainly one of the most interesting and informative reports on a technical subject that I have read for some time.
We heard some detail about the Internet from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). It made me realise that there was more to the discussion that

I heard recently on the radio between Pat Kane, who is a pop star but also a graduate looking into the American way of life, and someone at the forefront in the United States who claimed that the Internet is now biological and should have rights written into the constitution.
I realise that it is no substitute for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, but on that programme I heard about a marriage that had grown out of contact on the Internet. Perhaps it has more human attributes than one would think. I hope that it is working on a divorce package as well. The marriage may have been made not in heaven, but on the Internet—yet it may still end in the divorce courts.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that one of the advantages of the Internet is that we can be whoever we choose—male or female, old or young, black or white? That has some interesting implications for our democracy.

Mr. Connarty: I know that people reinvent themselves every day in this place, but I had not realised that they also did so on the Internet. My hon. Friend is the chair of the Back-Bench parliamentary Labour party committee on science and technology. I have tried to take an interest in those matters, but she is far ahead of me.
Indeed, I took the trouble to go to Martlesham to see the British Telecommunications experiments. It is clear that there is a future that we have not envisaged if only we allow it to come to us. In my constituency, within a few hundred yards of my home, there is a teleworking cottage in the converted stables of an old house. The great thing about a teleworking cottage, especially in an environment such as Scotland, is that not only can it train people to use computers, but because many jobs can he done across the Internet in various locations close to the company that requires work to be done, it can supply work to people in rural areas.
I am sure that we should be worried about some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, such as the change in social relationships if we begin to use teleworking, but there are great advantages in teleworking for, for example, a lady in a rural area. If she has no work, her choice is either to leave her rural environment or to find a new medium with which to contact the workplace—and obviously teleworking is one.
I was impressed by the Select Committee report, but I was disappointed by the Government's response, which was published in November, because it appears that, in the main, the Select Committee's recommendations have been rejected. The Government state in paragraph 7:
the existing regulatory framework based on the 1991 Telecommunications White Paper continues to provide the best framework for
development. They refer to an evolutionary environment. I do not propose that we go into a revolutionary mode, especially as the Labour party has changed clause IV, but I think that there are many reasons to be worried about keeping to the path that the Government are on.
Paragraph 7(b) states:
the new local delivery franchises for broadcasting services should continue to be awarded on an exclusive basis".


There is a danger that we shall end up with what was warned of in the Select Committee report, which is local monopolies becoming entrenched, rather than the sort of development that we need to face the potential challenge of the super-highway.
It is clear that the liberalisation of 1984 has had benefits. There are 125 cable franchises covering two thirds of the population—or rather, they pass two thirds of the population. As we have heard, although 3 million households are passed, only 650,000 are connected—only 21.5 per cent. I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central say that that is the same percentage as for 1992, so progress seems to have been frozen.
Another interesting point is the 15 per cent. increase in telephones in households. No doubt that is aided by the cable companies offering telephony as well as entertainment services. I have read enough to know a little of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) said about local networks being only copper in many cases, not optical fibre. The aspiration—indeed, the prerequisite—for the sort of super-highway that we are supposed to be discussing tonight is that there should be optical fibre and, possibly, radio at the end of it to give us the broadband, two-way communication required.
I note that the national grid is to have another national network of optics across the grid. Fibreway, a company mainly owned by GPT Ltd., plans a national network along canalways. There will be a number of fibre optic national networks, but they will not necessarily reach what should be the final user. As the Select Committee said in its report, the railways will probably be another alternative for running an optical fibre network. The problem is that that would then link with a series of local networks of a much lower quality, which basically would have been put in simply to get a quick return from selling broadcasting services.
British Telecom and Mercury are locked out of entertainment provision. One of the major concerns of the Select Committee was that without their being allowed access, they cannot get into the broadcast income stream, so they cannot justify the sort of investment required to go from national to local.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On one specific point, it must be clear that BT and Mercury are allowed to do anything they wish, in an interactive sense, with any household in the country. In other words, that is a national possibility. Equally, they are allowed to bid for the new local delivery operators, using their existing infrastructure—again for taking entertainment, and in this case simultaneous entertainment, if they wish to bid. In both those circumstances, the policies that I set out in our response are an advance and show that, although the interactive aspect of BT has been there from the beginning, there are signs that there is competition, and therefore great potential for BT in that market.

Mr. Connarty: I had intended to deal with the point that the Minister made. I do not think that he is telling us that, at this moment, BT could put entertainment down the line nationally to sell to people in their homes. The 20 million telephone customers cannot suddenly be accessed for interactive or broadcast purposes nationally. I picked up that matter in what the Government said.
In fact, BT had six franchises, but it gave up five of them and retained an interest only in Westminster. The reason was that BT did not feel that that was compatible with its aspiration to develop a national two-way broadband network. The present regulations—or restrictions—have created local, not national, and narrow, not broadband, networks.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said about the quality of the Cambridge network. I am sure that it will fit in nicely with a national network, but it is probably one of the few that will. The point is that they will not be able to be stapled together.
That is my problem, coming at the issue very much from a lay person's viewpoint, and looking at what has been created—a series of local network loops that need to be stapled together to make a national network. But there is no main player willing to put the quality all the way down the line and to ensure that the network is put together. I do not know how the network loops can be stapled together to make a national network. Therefore, we may make a super-highway, but there will not be many turning-on points for the community and for users.
The Government's comment about public telecommunications operators was interesting. Paragraph 44 of the Command Paper states, as the Minister argued earlier:
there is no asymmetry in the regulatory framework".
He argued that BT had chosen to dispose of its cable franchises, but that BT and Mercury were able to act as agents for franchisees or to bid for franchises in local areas. It is worth noting that Mercury has 28 local cable franchises. As has been said before, it is owned by Cable and Wireless. That means that it is 80 per cent. owned by an American company.
No PTO can transmit entertainment nationally. On page 33 of the Select Committee's July report, BT said that, if it could transmit entertainment, broadcast services could eventually have
such a significant impact on the economics [of broadcast networks] that their provision would allow voice telephony to be offered at marginal cost.
That is an attractive prospect. It reminds me of the vision of "atoms for peace" that was discussed when I was a young boy. It did not come off in that industry.
BT seems to be saying that the main driving force behind its early development will become marginal compared with the fantastic and fascinating services that can be offered. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon made that point. The most important thing is not the infrastructure, but the services that it will carry, yet the Government seem to be locked into regulations. They are worried about the development of the infrastructure when they should look to the future and focus on the services.
People keep talking about the United States' involvement in cable companies. I was interested to note that United States companies have 67 per cent. of the cable market, that Canadian companies have 19 per cent., and that French companies have 5 per cent., leaving United Kingdom companies with only 5 per cent. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the UK is the only country that allows telephony to be put down cable at the same time as broadcasts. All the advantages seem to be with the companies that will undermine the strength of


our bigger companies, especially BT, which should be a lead company, with all advantages given. The policy is not sensible.
As a lay person, I find it freakish that the Government should forbid the 20 million plus customers of the PTOs to get on to the highest technology, the super-highway and the Internet. The Minister said that the intention is to consider the use of wavebands and radio in sparsely populated regions. The map on page 19 of the Select Committee report shows a small, fragmented area of black, which denotes the cable franchises in Scotland, plus only a little line around Aberdeen.
That is where the economic argument will come in. We might get the radio bands, but unless the project is supported by the Government or taken up by a company such as BT, which is big enough to take on extra infrastructure costs—as part of the public service return for the cash that it will receive from investment—I do not know how it can be done. No small, local cherry-picking cable companies could undertake such a project.
We have talked about the regulations, but a strong argument is advanced on page 46 of the report that there might be a single regulator. In the future, we shall have not cable, wireless or telephone companies, but a single stream of digital information, which will be in many forms as it is translated and transposed for use by the consumer and by companies. There is a strong argument for bringing together the Office of Telecommunications and the Independent Television Commission, to consider whether there should be one regulator. I note that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of National Heritage have regulatory roles as well. We need to get ourselves into the right mode and deal with who will regulate, rather than just with what the regulations will be.
My final thoughts are simple and possibly naive. They deal with what people at the other end of broadcasts may be thinking. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge explained the Internet. When television was first invented, it probably frightened off anyone who wished to buy a television, but it is now so commonplace in our homes that people do not see it; it is only a decoding machine, picking up signals practically from the ether. It has become simple to operate, but that does not mean that it is a simple device.
I hope that, in making our decisions on the super-highway, we realise that we should have something that the end user will use. It should not be used just to put down pulp films. It must be a simple device that allows people to extract and receive all the aspects of the information revolution that are coming. It is clear that, if all people participate, the country, the economy and our ability to survive in the world will grow. Many people will be left out if an all-access interchange on the super-highway is not achieved.
I must admit that, although I am fascinated by Internet explanations and I have a modem that allows me to get on to it, I am put off by the complexity of getting in and by other matters that were explained by the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall). I am put off by the fact that what comes out of it might engulf me, and I would not be able to cope with it. That is the worry of people in the home and in business. We must consider the interfaces and the end points as well as the highway as we develop it.

Mr. Ray Whitney: I apologise for being unable to attend the beginning of the debate. I declare an interest in the cable industry. I have the privilege of claiming to be the oldest living inhabitant of the British cable industry. I was persuaded by the visions of my then right hon. Friends in 1981-82. I believed that, as the phrase was then, the cabling of Britain was the future. I was co-founder of a company that subsequently became the Cable Corporation, of which I have the honour to be chairman.
Our vision in 1981-82 was flawed, because, as it turned out, it was not possible to create a cable television industry in this country until the telecommunications structure was liberalised. That transformed the panorama in such a way that this country has made unparalleled progress and is, incomparably, the leader in the field. Although some leaders in the rest of the world have discovered the communications super-highway—the Vice-President of the United States, the Japanese and the Germans talk about it—we have been plodding along heavily and with great financial difficulty, and doing it.
The statistics have already been given to the House about the number of kilometres we have, the number of homes passed, and the billions of pounds that have already been spent. We are a long way down the road, and far further towards a super-highway than any other country.
The Government have not been given enough credit for that foresight, with the honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Minister. Ministers do not take enough credit for what they have achieved. I pay credit to my hon. Friend, who has been a shot in the arm to this exciting industry.

Mr. Andrew Miller: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government and this country are so far ahead, why, in chapter 2 of their Command Paper in November of last year, did the Government say:
The full scope of the opportunities offered by the convergence of telecommunications, broadcasting and information technology is only now becoming clear"?
The Government have only just woken up.

Mr. Whitney: No. These questions are entirely relative, and have to do with the development of modern technology. A great deal is only now becoming clear. I mentioned Vice-President Al Gore a moment ago—it has become clear to his scriptwriters but, meanwhile, we have on the ground miles and miles of fibre-optic interactive network.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should cavil. This should not be a cross-party battle. We should for once all recognise that Britain happens to be ahead. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to take such a carping approach.

Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is being a little economical with the truth, and giving a rather narrow reading of history. I am not making a party political point, but will he accept that the vast investment that went into British Telecom and the British communications industry occurred when it was in the public sector?
I do not wish to detract from British Telecom—it is a first-class company, a global player. It wants to invest £15 billion to £20 billion—that is the offer that Iain Valiance


made the Government, but it has been turned down because the regulatory system, which was correct in its infancy, is no longer correct, because circumstances have changed. We are not moving with the times: that was the fundamental argument in the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Whitney: I know it was; I had the privilege of reading the report. Although he did not recognise the point in his intervention, I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that British Telecom had the opportunity afforded by the cable revolution. It had six franchises of its own, but opted out and walked away from them. I feel no ill will towards British Telecom. If it wishes to spend £15 billion in the future, let it do so. Although it is behind the eight ball, it is being slow. Billions of pounds have already been spent.
I am the first to wish that more of the investment in the industry was British. When we formed our company, the great majority of investors were British, but—I am sure hon. Members are acquainted with this sad phenomenon—the relative short-termism of British finance meant that it was a long haul. Many people invested as, let us say, venture capitalists, and thought that they would be involved for three years and then get out. That, however, is not the nature of this industry.
My company has been spending money for 12 years, and only last year became cash-positive. There cannot be many big industries where that sort of time scale is acceptable, so we have to give credit to the investors, whether they be American, Canadian, French or British, and recognise what they have done and are doing. They are creating a fibre-optic network for this country, at no cost to the taxpayer. That was the vision of the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry way back in 1981-82. It has been realised.
I hope that British capital will come back as the industry matures. The financial institutions have been pretty slow on the uptake, and slow to understand the potential. It is now being understood, and I am optimistic that British capital will come back to an exciting and important national industry.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is no longer in his place but I wish to pick up a point that he made. He referred to the national network and the unsatisfactory stapling together of local networks. I hope that I can bring him good cheer, because that is happening very effectively.
There is in place something called the London Interconnect, which essentially joins the M25 area and beyond—from Berkshire to Essex—by means of fibre-optic connections. The quality is excellent, as good as anyone could wish for in this advanced stage of the technology. Plans are already well advanced to link region to region so that we have a fibre-optic national grid—again, at no cost to the taxpayer.
The Minister has already explained the opportunities available to British Telecom. From my experience with my cable company, I can testify to the fact that British Telecom's service improved out of all recognition virtually overnight, and the winner is the consumer.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman referred to the deployment of optical fibre by the cable companies. I acknowledge his point, but will he confirm that there is

almost no deployment of optical fibre by those companies in customers' homes? Does he share my concern that that is where we are falling behind?

Mr. Whitney: It is true that there is a technical problem with the last drop, but I am confident that, in the next year or two, the last drop connection and a great many other interactive services will appear. The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to my next point.
Progress has, of course, been much slower than many of us would have wished, and certainly slower than the cable companies would have wished. They have a strong interest in getting the network in place quickly, so that they can earn revenue. There have been a range of tax changes, with which I shall not bore the House and with which many hon. Members are probably familiar, but that caravan is now rolling fast. Over the next year or two, I believe—in fact, I know—that there will be a range of new interactive services that will develop much more rapidly than they have so far, and more rapidly than seems likely in any other country.
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), there are great opportunities for British industry. I hope that large and small technical industries are fully alerted to those opportunities and to the challenge.
There are two further opportunities for Britain. The first concerns investment, and the second involves the provision of all the technology that the industry will need. Fundamentally, there is a terrific opportunity for British consumers and British business. Businesses in my area are happy to have BT and our local cable company supplying telephony services. Everyone benefits—as, for example, with the schools initiative.
I emphasise that this has been a success story. British Telecom has been given opportunities in the past and has great opportunities for the future. The structure created 10 or 12 years ago has not only stood the test of time but shown that it is capable of developing to the very great benefit of this country. We should rejoice in that fact.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must apologise to the House. When I spoke earlier, I did not declare an interest. I was previously sponsored by the Union of Communication Workers, representing postal workers, which has amalgamated with the National Communication Union, which works in the telecom industry and is now called the Communication Workers Union. Had I not been sponsored by a union, however, I would not have changed what I said.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in rectifying the omission.

Sir Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am prompted to say that I should have declared an interest in my speech since I am an adviser to Cable and Wireless.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much.

Ms Ann Coffey: I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Many people like myself do not fully understand the complexities of the new technology, especially


broadband. It was, however, explained to me that optical fibres were like a man or a woman flashing down a dark hole a torch carrying millions of Morse messages per second, and that each flash had multiple purposes. I am grateful for that explanation. I now understand. [Laughter.]

Mr. Caborn: What was the message?

Ms Coffey: What is the message? That is the question. Although I may not understand the exact technicalities, I understand that we are facing an enormous revolution in our working, leisure and even shopping practices, with all the involved possibilities for social change, and all the unpredictable consequences of it.
As the hon. Member who represents Stockport, which is in the heart of the north-west, I am all too aware that Stockport was at the heart of the original industrial revolution. One can still see the remains of that revolution in Stockport; the great cotton and engineering mills which are now empty. I shall refrain, however, from making any party political point. It is clear that that industrial revolution is over, but it has left a legacy of bitterness and anger. In its wake, the first industrial revolution brought wealth to some, and poverty, misery and oppression to others. As a society, we are still suffering the consequences.
Looking to the future, and to the second industrial revolution that will occur through this new technology, like many hon. Members, I think that we would be very foolish to let history repeat itself. The new technology gives us all a chance to give genuine equal opportunity to all members of our society. That is why I think that universal access to the services which have yet to be developed must be at the heart of the debate.
Nobody can second-guess what those services may or may not be and which of them will be successful. Will tele-shopping take off? Will tele-working take off? How many people will take advantage of videophones? Nobody knows about future services, but we know about the availability of the present infrastructure. Ensuring universal access to that infrastructure would lay the basis for ensuring universal access to the services which have yet to be delivered.
NYNEX Cablecomms is cabling Stockport, and l have had the usual complaints about sub-contractors digging up things that they should not and tree roots being threatened. I must say, however, that NYNEX has always been very helpful in my communications with it, and it has also contributed to the community by providing grants to local groups and to the local football team, Stockport County, which is in need of some help. I have not managed, however, to get from NYNEX—this is absolutely crucial—a commitment to cable every school in my constituency.
I welcomed the announcement last week by the Cable Communications Association to give a standard free link up for every school passed by, but it has not given a commitment to pass by every school. That commitment to a free link, therefore, is meaningless to ensuring universal access unless every school is linked. Any school outside that network, should broadband be needed in future to deliver services, would be seriously disadvantaged.
I strongly and passionately believe that the technology which is being developed is a means of ensuring that every child in every education authority is offered the

same opportunity. For example, because of the way in which schools are funded, more pupils means more money for the school. The more money schools get, the more teachers they can employ, and the more specialist teachers they can employ.
If there were a link between schools, it would be possible for every school in a borough to take advantage of a specialist music lesson and to give all children equal access, irrespective of the school that they attended. I passionately believe that in this technology there is enormous potential to ensure equal educational access for all children.
A difficulty arises because there is already a telecommunications network. Although I welcome BT's offer to come to Stockport to discuss the projects that it is already implementing in rural areas, which sound very exciting, I cannot second-guess whether the existing telecommunications system will be able to take the available services in future, or whether a broadband infrastructure will be needed.
The Minister will be aware of my concern, because, when he came to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and showed what I thought was an admirable commitment to universal access in principle, I raised the matter with him. I ask him, therefore, to make it quite clear that it is not good enough for the Cable Communications Association to offer a free standard link. It must commit itself to link up every school if universal access is to mean anything. If the association makes that commitment, it would make a really positive contribution to the community, which would be greatly welcomed.
On a slightly different issue, the Minister is probably aware that there is much concern about the kind of films and other material which goes out on television—although it is, of course, subject to control. I believe that what consenting adults do, or what consenting adults watch other consenting adults do, is a matter for adults. The difficulty is that children may sometimes have access to such material or may be involved in the making of it, which is not acceptable to many of us. This is a difficult issue, because it is not easy to control material on the Internet. The issue needs to be not only addressed by the Government but raised at a G7 summit.
It would be helpful if, in responding to the debate, the Minister could say what progress has been made, or indicate how he thinks we could ensure that, given that individuals have the right to watch what they like, we can protect young children from being exposed to such material and being used in it. We must ensure that there is not a market for the use of children in making pornographic material for adults to view. I would be grateful for his response.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall undertake not to speak for quite as long as I did last night, because I know that at least one other hon. Member wants to speak. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Information. Like the Minister, I feel that I am occasionally attacked by hon. Members. I plead not guilty, as I cannot be responsible for the sins of my forefathers.
Several important things are happening in the House. Hon. Members will have noticed a response to a parliamentary question that I tabled a couple of days ago,


notifying the House of the merger of some of the departmental responsibilities as a result of new technology. We are now experimenting seriously with getting Hansard on line. A new tool called Cello is now available to provide a very detailed and rapid search of Members' speeches within minutes of them making those speeches. Thanks to the co-operation between the staff of Hansard, the Library and the Computer Office, and the merging of technologies between Departments, important developments are being made. The latest is a hypertext search facility, which will be an extremely powerful tool for all hon. Members.
Mention has been made of the importance of getting House documents on to the Internet. If the Government and the House really believe in open government, they must, by definition, place documents on the Internet.
I understand—this somewhat pre-empts the first sentence of the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—that the Finance and Services Committee discussed a proposal last night from the Information Committee to start linking the House on the Internet. That is a wonderful step in the right direction.
The only thing that worries me is that, given some of the points that have been made, and the admission by the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) that he was watching this debate outside this place, we will end up with a virtual Parliament. Some hon. Members may think that that is a good idea, as we can run businesses in this virtual economy. However, some of our constituents might think that we should spend more time in the Chamber dealing with the important things in life.

Sir Michael Marshall: The hon. Gentleman has identified a genuine problem. He must appreciate that, in certain situations, it is very easy to sign one's mail while listening to a debate. It becomes even more tempting to turn the volume down for some colleagues and to turn it up for others.

Mr. Miller: Indeed—and I have listened to some of the hon. Gentleman's speeches before.
I want to take a brief trip around the world. A couple of weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) and the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), in his capacity as chairman of the British-American parliamentary group, and I were involved in a video link with Tom Foley, the former Speaker of Congress. Such links are steps in the right direction, and they are steps which the House should be taking.
A couple of weekends ago, while I was at home, I introduced a friend of mine to the Internet. At the time, I was logged on to a database in the university of Iowa, in respect of a project with which the Science and Technology Select Committee is involved. My friend did not really believe that I was actually logged into a place so far away. I asked him what he would like to see, and he asked for something about South Africa.
Within minutes, I was able to show him, in real time, information from the African National Congress about the resolution of an industrial dispute. That matter would never have made it into the British media. That is a incredibly powerful demonstration of the direction in

which the technology will take us. It will provide information that people would otherwise not be able to access.
There have been exciting developments in my home area of the north-west of England. A project has been approved in collaboration with five other European regions, funded by the European Union, to link the regions on an experimental basis for a five-year pilot study. That kind of development will radically impact on distance learning, and in particular on language learning, and on the exchange of technical and cultural information.
The north-west has industrial strengths which we can exploit. Reference has already been made to GPT. A great deal of original ISDN—integrated services data network—technology was researched in GPT in Liverpool when it was the old Plessey company. We must exploit that technology to its fullest potential.
Other major manufacturers in the north-west, particularly companies which have historically been involved in defence communications equipment, can provide an enormously powerful base for the future of those technologies, particularly when we consider the need to develop cryptographic techniques on the Internet to deal with some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).
I would not deny that the cable companies are performing a particularly useful job. I will refer to the asymmetry implications in a moment. However, the companies should look around them, and see what other companies are doing in terms of providing infrastructure support to households, industries, schools and colleges.
The cable companies could do very simple things. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who declared an interest, is not here now, because I am referring to the company he mentioned. If the cable companies simply required their contractors to operate under the rules of BS 5750, we would not hear complaints like those we have heard from Stockport and Salford about the activities of that operation.
Perhaps the Minister will address that point when he replies to the debate. Perhaps he will send a very strong message to the cable companies to the effect that the House expects contractors who are opening the doors to huge sums of money for their own benefit to restore our streets and grass verges properly when they undertake that work.
On 28 February, I presented a paper to an industrial conference organised by Brunel university. A Conservative party representative was invited, but one was not sent. Several important issues were discussed at that conference. I commend to the House the paper entitled "Internet Futures", which was written by Jeremy Barnes, Jon Chalmers and Ian Pearson of the BT laboratories in Martlesham. I am aware that the Minister has a high regard for the work of the scientists at Martlesham.
That paper contains an interesting sentence, which I believe encapsulates the issues that we are dealing with:
It can be argued that the development of optical fibre is commoditising bandwidth and hence driving the Information Revolution just as the steam engine drove the Industrial Revolution.
That simple sentence, despite the very convoluted word in the middle, typifies the power of the technology at our disposal.


The House should congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central and the Trade and Industry Select Committee on their report. Their recommendations represent a powerful way forward. They have come up with a novel solution to the issue of asymmetry which will assist the cable companies and BT. It would be extremely helpful if the Government could say when they are going to adopt the recommendations.
The Select Committee report will provide us with a way towards universal access—a point raised by several hon. Members today. It will provide us with the basis for proper competition. It will also help our country to redevelop its industrial base.
In an early intervention, the Minister referred to radio wavelengths. When he replies, I hope that he will clarify what he means. I believe that he and I are—if I can use the awful pun—on the same wavelength in terms of the need to consider the technologies in their entirety. Radio, cable and twisted pair are necessary. Some of the technologies around twisted pair, like ISDN, will help solve some of the problems. However, radio will also be important.
In an earlier response, the Minister said that discussions were taking place about radio wavelengths. The cable companies tell us that they have a particular problem in this country about the area of the spectrum between zero to 4 GHz.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Everybody does.

Mr. Miller: Yes, and that is a problem, but it is one that other countries have tackled positively.
The Ministry of Defence largely dominates the distribution of that part of the spectrum. We must consider whether we need to keep that part in its hands, given the collaboration that is taking place across European frontiers and among NATO countries on other forms of communication inside the defence world. With some lateral thinking, it might be possible to release a part of that spectrum.
This debate can get very technical, but it is about one basic thing—people. It is a debate about how we best provide a proper basis for information exchange for the people of this nation. Yes, it is about entertainment, as some hon. Members said, and that is an important part. Yes, it is about improving education provision within schools, colleges and our workplaces. It is also about a new definition of work, with all the implications that that has. It is an exciting technology, and we should not miss out on exploiting it to the full.
While there is bound to be the odd, overtly political exchange, the simple fact is that, if the House is serious about providing the best for our citizens, we must take on board all the potential of this technology, as well as recognising that, on occasions, there are some dangers with confidentiality, pornography and so forth. The technology is there for everyone, and it should be made available to every citizen in our nation.

Mr. David Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) for allowing me some time. I hope that the House will understand that I was unable to attend the earlier part of the debate due to a meeting of the Select Committee on Social Security and the investigation that it is carrying on.
I must declare a non-pecuniary interest, as I am involved in a charity in my constituency, which I was instrumental in setting up, designed to enable schools there to set up connections to the Internet and to develop electronic mail connections. To that effect, we have developed an exchange between schools in my constituency and in the district of Congressman Tim Petri in Wisconsin, in the United States of America. To date, more than 200 electronic mail letters have been exchanged between the schools. I hope that that will develop in an exciting way, although it will probably be slightly unpredictable. Pace Modems has supported that project and I probably ought to include it in the declaration of interest. It is a British company, and it has given at least one free modem to a school in my constituency.
Interestingly, the main point about the debate is that there is excitement on both sides of the House about the technology. It is enormously exciting. Clearly, as was said on the "Today" programme this morning—in a slightly different context, although it is none the less relevant to this debate—a new industrial revolution is taking place. The information technology revolution will transform the way in which we approach work, leisure, politics, government and virtually every other aspect of our lives. It is inconceivable that many of the things we do today will be done in the same way in 50 years, but it is also likely that they will not be done in the same way in as little as five or even 10 years. An enormous transformation in almost every human activity and the way in which we go about it will be provided by the information age.
In many areas, we do not have information at our finger tips, but the information age will literally put information there. It will be available at underground stations, in people's homes and places of work and in public buildings. There will be public access all over the country in all sorts of buildings, as well as in our schools and educational institutions.
It is not a technology solely for young people. Indeed, one of the constituents who sends me electronic mail is a pensioner. In one of his e-mail letters he said, "Mr. Shaw, I just wish this technology had existed in my day." As far as I know, he is still alive and he was certainly alive at the other end of the computer, but he is enjoying being on the Internet and sending e-mail to such an extent that he has signed up with not just one service provider but two. Clearly, that is the way in which many people of all ages will approach it—they will find it fascinating and it offers a tremendous opportunity to expand their knowledge and interest.
The Government's policy is right. We are deregulating where regulations exist and we are avoiding further regulation. That will encourage developments considerably. British software and hardware companies will come into the market, where they are not already there, although in many areas Britain is doing well and taking the lead.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to a visit around the world, and I would go along with that. On my experiences on the Internet, I enjoy looking at the UK Government's World Wide Web server, which is constantly being developed. I am pleased to be able to say that my hon. Friend the Minister recently posted his speech and his Group of Seven conference attendance.


I am also delighted that one can monitor other Governments on line. I find it interesting to look on line. I can pop into the Japanese Prime Minister's office from my constituency home and have a look at what he has been saying recently. I can pop into the House of Representatives about half a minute later and have a look at what is going on in the United States Parliament while at the same time keeping tabs on some aspects of Washington life in terms of what Government decisions are being taken there.
The ability to do all this for the price of a local telephone call—

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Who is paying for all this?

Mr. Shaw: Clearly, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Private Secretary needs to understand a little more about how this operates. I pay for it—for the price of a local call on a Sunday. The service provider is in London, and one has access from there to anywhere. On a Sunday afternoon, one can dial up the headquarters of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States and download a photograph of a US satellite or a shuttle programme. I have looked at the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a home page on the World Wide Web. One can find out all about spy craft and how American spies operated. One can also go for a quick tour of newspapers from St. Petersburg in Russia, Der Spiegel, and Italian newspapers, to the Palo Alto newspaper in San Francisco.
Knowledge is available now on the Internet. The World Wide Web, which was developed with British money in Geneva—we should never forget that British Government support helped that—has helped our developments. I should also pay tribute to the Government for their support for Super-JANET—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Super-JANET that has helped the United Kingdom's academic network to get under way.
There are many exciting developments in the United Kingdom and many opportunities for people all over the world to gain information, and for us to gain information that is relevant to our work in the House. What the Government are doing should be supported and encouraged. I hope that there will be further developments soon.
In conclusion, what is happening is enormously exciting and will transform our lives. I have been lobbied on political issues from New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, Belgium and the United States. I expect that we shall all become true citizens of the world, and not merely of the United Kingdom. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments about further developments.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: I have a confession to make. I am not on the Internet, and I have no intention of going on the Internet. None of my constituents appears to be on the Internet, because none of them seeks to send me any electronic mail. As the political speeches made in this place are so boring, the idea of reading speeches from other parts of the world frankly fills me with horror.
First, I welcome the report and also the chance to debate it in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Trade and Technology's personal enthusiasm for the information super-highway, in marked contrast with most of his senior colleagues in the Government. We need action, rather than warm words.
I wish to refer briefly to the speeches of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), for Falkirk, West (Mr. Connarty), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Stockton.

Ms Coffey: Stockport.

Dr. Moonie: My apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey)—the "Stocks" are difficult to distinguish.
All Members would agree that this has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's summing up. As regards the content of the report, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)—whom I missed out of my list—that I agree with its general thrust, although I may well disagree with some points of detail.
My personal experiences of electronic communication are relatively limited. I had a box on a thing called Telecom Gold a few years ago, but unfortunately I lost the bit of paper on which my identifying number was pasted. I was never able to find it again, and eventually it fell into disuse. My only other direct connection with electronic information came when my annunciator went on fire two weeks ago. Clearly, I am an ill-fated player in the game of communications.
I wish to read to the House two passages from a recent report by SRI International called "Digital Video in Advanced Multimedia". The first states:
The information superhighway is a myth created by media hyperbole. It is too vague and ill-defined a concept on which to set investment plans and national policy. It suggests that a single all-encompassing network will provide users with broadband access when in reality the 'highway' will consist of many networks with varying capabilities and services that link together".
The second states:
The notion that the computer, television, video-game and telecommunications industries are likely to merge into one gigantic full-service entity has no support and much evidence to suggest that the industries will continue to remain separate".
That report was produced in the past couple of years at a cost of several million dollars, and it behoves us to take a close interest in it. It provides a down-to-earth view of where we are at present, and where we are likely to be going in the immediate future.

Mr. Whitney: Is the report based solely on American experience?

Dr. Moonie: The report costs about £900 and, I regret to say, I cannot yet afford to buy it. I have only seen the summary, although I am hoping to wangle it out of somebody in the near future. I may then be able to give the hon. Gentleman a more informed answer.
The basic analysis of the report is correct in that we as policy-makers are inclined to develop too rosy a view of what future technology may bring. However, the development of the super-highway and the important industries which surround it should not be left to market


forces alone. This is one area where the Government can do many things to foster industry. Politicians must also consider social issues such as access to the system, and social effects which any major changes in working and consumer patterns may bring. These matters are important, but they remain largely under-developed at present.
What is meant by the information super-highway? While SRI International is right in stating that it is a vague and ill-defined concept, it is possible to have a stab at it. For example, the Internet is not an information super-highway, as anyone who has used it will agree. While it is becoming popular commercially, the majority would perhaps see it as a network of country lanes. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred to the cost of a telephone call on a Sunday afternoon, and that was apposite. That is an exact parallel with the Internet, along which one can amble while admiring the view every so often. The Internet is important because it demonstrates that there is a demand for the services on any super-highway that is ultimately developed.
The information super-highway is also not the delivery of 32 channel television services to all homes. Nor is it simply putting television and telephone services down the same pieces of wire or fibre. It may be a mixture of services, and include others for education, work, leisure, health, shopping or whatever people want. It is a system with relatively easy access to the great majority of individuals in society, and it mixes public service with private enterprise to allow us to gain the maximum economic and social returns.
In technological terms, it is the delivery of services on demand and interactively through a mixture of optical fibre, copper wire—twisted pair or coaxial—and digital radio transmission. The last of those is very important, and I trust that the Minister will spend some time on that during his speech. It is becoming an acute problem, as operators look to develop an end loop for users in remote areas.
The Labour party has stated that we will review the asymmetry regulations with a view to allowing BT to enter the broadcast entertainment market, and we will do that at a specified time—assuming, as I confidently predict, that there will be a Labour Government shortly. That date has yet to be decided because of certain technical and financial complexities. Our action will unleash the ability of British Telecom to raise the necessary capital to install its new infrastructure.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the Select Committee's advice in that respect, but perhaps it has been too restrictive. Cable companies have been slow to achieve a cash return for their investment, and many are not yet in that position. It would be most unfair to expect companies to face competition at a time when they are carrying a heavy burden of servicing debt with no cash stream to support it. Any system must take that into account.

Mr. Caborn: If hon. Members read the report carefully, they will see that we also put a series of safety valves into the recommendation. There would be a right to appeal where difficulties such as revenue flow could be taken into account. There could be other problems as the franchise licence unfolds during the seven years. We were clear about giving a target date for the firms, and if they were making unreasonable demands they could face

a penalty, which would be competition. I thought that the object of the exercise was to make sure that firms were opened up to competition; that is why we said that the over-franchising on a rolling programme is the answer.

Dr. Moonie: I accept that the emphasis is on removing the asymmetry, rather than on the safeguards. I am just restating for the record that we are conscious of the need for safeguards and that companies will be allowed to make a decent return on their investments before facing competition from a national network. We must not forget that the national provider has a considerable advantage over local companies.
Any future regulatory regime must preserve competition in long distance and local services, and must also ensure that there is a real choice for the consumer over as wide an area as possible without unnecessary duplication. The key to any effective long-term strategy for information super-highways is that we are talking about consumer choice and that we are empowering individuals. We are not empowering News International, NYNEX, the BBC, British Telecom or any other provider to tell people what they can watch in their own homes. They can put a box on their television or computer and they can choose, without restriction, from everything that is available to watch. There is wide agreement on both sides of the House that we must ensure that consumers and individuals are empowered, and not the providers of services.
Another important area for the Government to consider is the present state of anti-competition law in this country. There are grounds for saying that we should perhaps be considering strengthening the laws on competition, not to provide another stick to beat companies' backs but in the hope of being able to proceed with lighter regulations in the future. If the legal framework is stronger, the framework for regulation can in turn be lighter. That is the view of the Director General of Oftel and I support it.
Cable companies pay for the use of long-distance and local networks of other operators, including BT, through interconnection agreements. If BT is allowed to compete for the delivery of entertainment services locally, why should it then be entitled to dig up our streets again? I live in a small, relatively quiet constituency in Scotland—Kirkcaldy—which has the good fortune to have been completely cabled.
I say to my hon. Friends who have complained about their experiences that mine has been relatively benign. The cable companies broke a few water mains every now and then, including one outside my door, and managed to dig up one of the telephone lines in my area, but I had remarkably few complaints and the exercise in now complete. I would receive an awful lot of complaints from my constituents if BT dug up all the streets again to lay another network in the local loop.
Just as we pay for interconnection agreements on the long-distance loop and have common carrier obligations, that may be necessary in areas where BT cannot readily install an alternative network. Where it can do so, I have no objection, although it may be a waste of money and cheaper to impose a common carrier obligation on the provider of the local loop. Once broadband services are available, however, it becomes immaterial, because the loop can carry any volume of traffic that one wishes to send down it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wycombe pulls a face about that, but it seems to be the


logical choice. Companies have a common carrier obligation, so I see no reason on grounds of competition why a common carrier obligation could not be employed in the local loop.

Mr. Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Moonie: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.
If I pick up a telephone here in the House of Commons, the exchange decides whether to connect my call through BT, Mercury or the Government telecommunications network. It is invisible to me as a user. If, at home, I wish to view a television channel or buy from a home shopping service, why should I care whose infrastructure I use? However, I do not want two separate lines coming into my house, and I certainly do not want my streets dug up again. That general view has been expressed to me by constituents who have asked about that point.
We often talk about broadband services and the possibilities that they can open up, but those services must be demand-led rather than technology-pushed. Experience of users of new multi-media services shows that at present there is little demand. The Rochester, USA, trial reported in The Economist a couple of weeks ago is a good example of that. So there is no guarantee that the services being developed will be taken up until people really want to use them. People will not pay for them unless the demand is created.
Cable companies have been relatively successful in acquiring subscribers, but they have certainly not developed an overwhelming desire among the population for their services. The search is still on for the killer applications—those that will make the difference—and who can say what they will be? I certainly cannot. Cable companies have also had the luxury of bidding for franchises in areas where they see the most market potential. That has by no means given us a broadband national network, nor will it when the next strand of licences is produced. At best, 80 per cent. of homes in the country will have access, and there is no guarantee that BT would go further than that.
I put that question directly to Sir lain Vallance, who made the point clearly. BT will not cable up every home in the country, whether it is given immediate access to broadband services or not, so we must look at other ways of doing that. It will not be done entirely by fibre-optic cable. Radio is important for remote areas. Like it or not, we shall end up with a patchwork quilt of services that are interconnected. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that the right standards are employed to begin with.
That is another role for regulation in the market because cabling must be at the right level to promote competition but also ensure that the widest area is covered. We must ensure that there is proper inter-connectability of all parts of the service. The Government have a duty to set standards in that respect. I am still not certain whether that is currently the case. I think that it would bear close scrutiny from the Department for Trade and Industry to see what more should be done to strengthen it.
The Government also have a role as a procurer of services. The state still plays a major role in the provision of postal services, has its own telecommunications system

and is the biggest single procurer of information technology systems in the country. If one wants to see what a broadband communications system looks like, one can look at Super-JANET. I shall not repeat the joke at the expense of Madam Deputy Speaker, to her great relief, I am sure. Scottish Telecom is busy developing a similar system to connect all the universities in central Scotland, as not every university has access to Super-JANET.
Other public agencies, such as the national health service, buy into broadband services for the transmission of medical records. As a major procurer, the Government have an opportunity to support those developments. A little foresight now could pay large dividends in future. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the NHS. We must never forget that it wasted some £100 million in the past 10 years on information technology systems which did not work. We certainly do not want to go down that road again and it may be worth our while to pay a little more attention to the development of proper software services which can make use of the available capacity to carry them.
Another role of Government is the promotion of common standards throughout the European Community. I expect that the Minister will refer to that in his wind-up speech, so I do not propose to dwell on it now. It is also important to recognise that the super-highways must not be dominated by one supplier of software, as has largely happened in the computer industry. We must insist on open standards and an open system so that any package can communicate with any other that is available. Although the information super-highway is not an economic panacea, it may be an economic necessity if we are to compete with the rest of the world. If we get the policy framework right soon, we can play a major part in its world-wide development.
The last role of Government that I wish to mention is in promoting social and educational services. I welcome the commitment by the cable companies to cable all schools in their franchised areas. I hope that they will extend that public service offer to public offices, libraries and other elements of the public service infrastructure so that we can start to develop genuinely local information channels which will provide enormous benefit to their areas. Although local government faces tight restrictions on spending, I hope that Ministers will extend the funds available for items such as information technology to allow the development of services which will rapidly become essential. Will the Minister comment on that?
Few people have spent much time considering the potential for social disintegration if information super-highways ultimately make major changes in our patterns of work and leisure. I do not like the idea of parents and children no longer interacting other than remotely. The implications of super-highway development for social cohesion must be studied now—not once it is already in place, when it will be too late.
The information super-highway may be ill-defined, so let us all start to develop a vision of what we want from it so that our demands, in turn, lead to the technological development we need. We may not get a single national network, so let us be clear about how we shall regulate for fair competition and equal access to networks. Let us ensure that those many networks can be properly linked through common standards. SRI doubted whether various industries would converge in the super-highway. In the long run, that may be in the best interests of everyone


involved: consumers, hardware manufacturers, software developers, programme makers, and anyone else who travels along the super-highway, but particularly the consumer.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): This has been a remarkable debate. It has covered a vast area, and in the remaining time I shall find it almost impossible to do justice to the points that have been made. I therefore promise to e-mail everyone who has spoken on points that I do not cover, with the exception of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), with whom I shall use more traditional measures—a glass of whisky and a chat, in person rather than on the video link.

Mr. Kirkwood: May we all have that?

Mr. Taylor: As a Minister, I make a special offer, but I make only one per speech.
The report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee is a remarkable document and I add my praise to the kind comments about the Committee's work and about its Chairman. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has done an extremely good job in co-ordinating the work of the Committee. I am extremely grateful to him because, as I said when I appeared before the Committee recently, the report arrived on my desk at virtually the same time as I was appointed Minister for Trade and Technology.
I read it avidly as part of my learning process. The questions that arose as I read the report were ultimately included in the Command Paper, which was published last November. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central appreciates that it is a measure of the seriousness with which I viewed the report that the Department of Trade and Industry released a Command Paper rather than a simple reply. The hon. Gentleman enjoys detail. If he reads the Command Paper regularly—I know that he would not just glance at it once—he will notice the policy evolutions that it contains. I hope that he will grasp those evolutions because Governments do not often make such progress. He knows exactly to what I refer.
As many hon. Members have said, we face the problem of how to deliver benefits to everyone. It is very easy for me to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that everyone in the country must be on the information super-highway. That statement is a good soundbite that will capture the headlines, but what does it mean? For a start, it is misleading, because there is not, and cannot be, any such thing as a "super-highway". If the word is to be used at all, it should be used in the plural. I was delighted that several hon. Members noticed that fact.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and I agree that the super-highway is an interconnection of many different networks, the evolution of which will often be unpredictable and will stem from both the development of technology and surprising changes in demand patterns. It is not a criticism to say at this juncture that Britain does not have an optical fibre super-highway to every household in the country. Most people would not know what to do with a bit of optical fibre cable if it were stuck into their houses.
One hon. Member—I apologise for not recalling who it was—said that we use the telephone for only a few minutes each day. Americans use the telephone for about five times as long, so they are much more likely to want to use any information system which requires a connection. For example, personal computers in America are much more likely to be connected to the cable network by a modem than computers in this country.
A staggering number of personal computers and a large number of CD-ROMs were purchased in this country last Christmas. That is a very good sign. It is excellent news that more British households are accessing the new multimedia discipline of CD-ROMs, but that has nothing to do with the information super-highway. Multimedia becomes a part of the information super-highway when it is connected to the network and—to give a simple illustration—when a CD-ROM can be updated with statistics from a databank via the telephone line. We are likely to move in that direction more slowly than the Americans, but I would argue that we shall move more rapidly than other countries in the European Union.
The information networks—to use a broader definition—require a series of different stages of technology that will be adapted to meet the likely needs of consumers, such as business men and institutions, but which will be capable of being upgraded as demand changes. That is a very important point that did not quite come out of the otherwise excellent speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central.
It is not a criticism to say that twisted pair is connecting into households, because, with new technology and the increasing roll-out of integrated services data network lines, an enormous amount of information can be sent to any house through more traditional methods. It is certainly true that BT has very little optical fibre close to the household. BT's networks are fibre-reach, but at a certain point in any locality they switch to more traditional systems. Therefore, one cannot criticise the cable companies for following a similar pattern of operation.
The point is: can the networks be upgraded when demand requires it? The Cable Communications Association and BT have satisfied me that that is precisely what can and will happen. For example, BT has made it quite clear that any business with more than five telephone lines can be transferred to optical fibre. That is excellent news.
One of the difficulties that I see as a Minister sponsoring the information society question is that we must encourage individuals to know what to ask for from the networks. What applications will people have for the networks? How will families adapt from their present low level of interactivity—using the television remote control—to using a similar mechanism in order to access home shopping, home banking, long-distance learning and the wonderful array of technological projects which we know exist already? They do not have to be invented; they are there now. One can see them at Martlesham or at the BBC.
The hon Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) rightly paid tribute to the interactive experiments that are going on in Cambridge. They are equally as impressive as the experiments that BT is running in the Ipswich-Colchester area. I do not think that it serves anyone's interest to say that one is good and one is bad.


Both experiments are interesting and they will lead to a growth in knowledge of not only what is technically possible, but what individuals are likely to demand.

Mr. McWilliam: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Taylor: I will give way so long as the hon. Gentleman understands that I am under great time pressure.

Mr. McWilliam: The Minister is in grave danger of misleading the House unintentionally because he does not seem to understand the restrictions on compression technology, which enable certain signals to be sent down twisted pair copper, and the lack of that restriction on fibre technology.

Mr. Taylor: I understand some of the technological issues—remarkable as that may seem for a Minister. However, I do not think that we should blind the House with science at the moment. We all want to move ultimately to a fully switched asynchronous transfer mode system; but that is not the point that I am making. We should not denigrate the current system in this country, because it has enormous applications of which we are still not taking full advantage.
Videotron in south London provides interactivity services. It is interesting that, when interactivity is offered to Videotron's customers, the penetration rate grows and the churn rate reduces—to use terms with which the industry is familiar. In other words, Videotron loses fewer customers who subscribed to its services initially.
We already have a very high-grade network. We have more leased lines of more than 2 MB in this country than any other country in Europe. Because of the competition which has flowed from the policies of liberalisation, our telecommunications costs could be cheaper than those of many other countries. Cheaper costs, combined with massively increased computer power, will form the backbone of the super-highways, which one can then try to use for varying levels of application.
Britain is making considerable advances in this area. Our policy of liberalisation has been successful, which is precisely why the European Union is now following that policy. We have already agreed to the liberalisation of alternative structures which are otherwise known as cable. That is why Commissioner Van Miert is becoming extremely agitated that companies are not opening up to the competition that already exists in Britain.
One of the complications for the recommendations of the Select Committee report is that Commissioner Van Miert is making it clear that within the European Union alternative infrastructures such as the cable industry will not be allowed to fall into the hands of the existing dominant telephone companies, which is precisely why he intervened recently in Germany.
The policy in Britain has not only brought considerable investment—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has said, the cable industry alone has produced £10 million of investment in Britain—but has enabled many parts of the country to access alternative infrastructures which are messy to install.
I agree with the point about BS5750. It was an extremely constructive comment that I shall take up with the Cable Communications Association, although since

kicking it in the autumn, it has considerably improved its standards and has taken on tree experts to ensure that cable companies do not alienate the very communities which they are hoping subsequently to serve.

Mr. Caborn: May I apologise for my colleagues on the Select Committee, as many of them are in Brussels this evening and therefore cannot be here? One thing may be extremely helpful. The Minister may well agree with it but have some difficulty in responding to the question. Does he consider it right to have an end date for the exclusions of public telecommunications operators of 2001 and 2002? That would be quite an advance for the industry—not just for BT and Mercury, but also for the supplier industries.

Mr. Taylor: I have no wish as Minister to cause unnecessary damage to BT or the other public telecommunications operators caught by the restriction. We must be quite clear that the only restriction on BT is the ability it has to pass simultaneous entertainment programmes down its existing infrastructure. It is now allowed to supply all the interactive services it wishes, and it is allowed to supply entertainment and interactive services to business and industries.
The review dates set were 1998 and 2001 for conveyance and provision. In my view, as I said in evidence to the Select Committee, the precondition for the review is competition. At the moment, the elements of competition are well under way. Those elements were seen and commented on by the Director General of Oftel in his consultative document in December, and I would be quite surprised if reviews did not take place on the dates mentioned. Although there will, of course, be a Conservative Government, it is unlikely that I will be the Minister at the time; nevertheless, that is my impression, and I am repeating what I said in evidence to the Select Committee.
The important point is for us to examine how we can make best use of the varying stages of infrastructure in the United Kingdom. We have heard many interesting comments from hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned several important issues—in particular, rural areas. I am supremely concerned about rural areas. Clearly, it will not be commercially obvious that every isolated cottage will get the full optical fibre broadband technology, but, as I have already stated, some 92 per cent. of the British population are effectively connected to the telephone network. That is why I have continued with the arrangements in the Command Paper to say that BT should consider itself open to bid on its existing infrastructures for the new local delivery licences that we have announced. That will enable it to reach outlying places.
Secondly, I have had extensive talks with BSkyB. Although one cannot be interactive with BSkyB because satellite receivers do not work in the reverse direction, BSkyB linked to a telephone line can provide what is pretty close to interactivity, as the smart card can then pick up the requested programme, whether it be educational or video on demand.
Thirdly, I am looking closely at releasing more radio spectrum, which is not easy. The point made earlier about radio spectrum is that it is complicated. The area that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned is not all MOD; some of it is already in use. I


understand the technical problems and I shall not bore the House with them. I am also looking at above 10 GH. There is considerable interest in both those areas and, as they say, watch this space.
The difficulty is not just the MOD. We will get more efficient use of radio spectrum when we move to digital television. The problem with analogue broadcasts is that they need to be kick started at each transmitter, which obscure a great deal of radio spectrum in and around the particular transmitter area. I am considering various possibilities, and I am keen to make progress as fast as possible.
Speeches this evening have shown a great deal of interest. I was impressed by the knowledge of the hon. Member for Blaydon about everything technical, but not about the Bangemann report or the G7 conclusions. I do not want to get into a tangle with the hon. Gentleman, but if he takes the time to read the Green Papers that the Commission has produced, he will find that they follow closely the direction that we have taken in Britain, largely because we had a massive input on the whole process. Therefore the European Union is moving in our direction.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) made some interesting comments. I agree with her about the BBC, but I do not have time to get into that. I am

also worried about encryption. The opportunities for open democracy are intriguing, but I will have to urge hon. Members to call for another debate if they wish me to raise that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) made some interesting points about convergence of technology and raising the profile of communications. I shall willingly do that soon.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was worried about interconnection, which, commercially, is in everybody's interests and is happening. Some interesting points were made about monitoring of the Internet, and I am happy to answer them in writing because I am concerned about them too and I think it is important that we examine video on demand, which concerns the ITC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is hard at work in his constituency on the Internet and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has considerable experience in the subject. He was right to say that British capital is now coming in—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate was concluded, pursuant to the resolution (6 March).

Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Class VIII, Vote 7

Retail Planning Policy

[Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Environment Committee of Session 1993-94, on Shopping Centres and their Future (House of Commons Paper No. 359); the Government's Response to the Fourth Report from the Environment Committee: Shopping Centres and their Future (Cm 2767); and the Department of the Environment Annual Report 1995; The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995-96 to 1997-98 (Cm 2807).]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1995 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment and its agencies on administration, including research, royal commissioners, committees, etc., and by the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency on appeals, and by the Building Research Establishment Executive Agency on buildings research and surveys.—[Sir Paul Beresford.]

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity under the supplementary estimates to introduce to the House the report of the Select Committee on shopping centres and their future. I begin by paying tribute to the former Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who chaired all the sessions in which we took evidence and started to prepare the Chairman's report, which was finished by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). I certainly pay tribute to the work they both put in, as did the other members of the Committee, in producing what I believe was a useful report.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Clerks to the Committee, to the Committee's research staff and to our advisers, Ross Davies and Rory Joyce, all of whom helped to make the inquiry interesting. I believe that we all learned a great deal about it.
I had a view about shopping before I started the inquiry. I felt that it was all pretty boring, and something I was quite keen to avoid. Once we get into these inquiries, we suddenly discover a whole series of jargon, but there is also much interesting information. I certainly learned a lot.
I discovered the meaning of so-called comparison shopping, activity shopping and factory outlets, which are quite different from the ones I was used to the north of England, where the factory had a shop at the back of the works. It was originally a device to stop pilfering, by means of which the people who worked at the factory were able to buy goods on the cheap, in order to encourage them not to take them for free. Eventually, the factory shops spread, and people in the neighbourhood used them. I gather that factory outlets now constitute an industry.
Probably the most important political message that I gained from the inquiry related to the turn of the political tide. In the 1980s, there was a strong belief—epitomised, perhaps, by Nicholas Ridley's time at the Department of the Environment—that we could leave everything to the market, while minimising planning. Since then, we have realised that we made many mistakes during that period,

and that better planning is needed. As the Committee began to recognise, planning is all about what people want; but a sub-theme must be what is good for people. We perceived that we must be careful in identifying what people wanted from the shopping of the future.
The Committee's task was made particularly difficult by the fact that people have an ambiguous view of shopping. They want to preserve town centres, for which they feel considerable affection, but they want shopping to be as convenient as possible. The difficulty lies in marrying the two requirements—preserving town centres, while making them convenient.
I am pleased not only with the report, but with the Government's response. I welcome their agreement with the thrust of the report, but I want to know how quickly they will implement their response to it. I agree with the Government that planning policy guidance note 6 needs revision, and I gather—if I understood correctly what was said during Question Time this afternoon—that the Government will try to complete that revision by the summer; I was not entirely certain whether they intended to complete the revision by the summer, or complete the consultation by that time.
Let me emphasise to the Government that the delay between their announcement that they want to revise the planning guidance and the actual revision of that guidance makes life very difficult for planning inspectors involved in inquiries, and those who present evidence at such inquiries. Should they present the evidence using the old guidance? Should they use the Minister's utterances, our report or the Minister's response to it? The process will be much tidier if the Government put the new planning guidance in place as soon as possible.
The Government did not accept the existence of problems relating to PPG 13 and transport issues, although they conceded that the guidance had been misinterpreted. They now say that they want to give further guidance. I welcome that, but again I urge the Minister to act quickly. It is particularly important to make car-parking requirements clear to planners.
Most out-of-town shopping areas have free car parking, while most in the town centres charge. That is ridiculous. Not every member of the Select Committee agreed with me, but I am very concerned about the charges levied by many local authorities. It is easy to raise such charges, because Governments make it virtually impossible for local authorities to raise money in other ways.
Stockport pushed up car-parking charges, introducing "park and display"; five years ago, I hardly noticed the handing of tickets from one car to another, but that practice now seems to be on the increase, which suggests that consumers think the system unfair. Let me tell local authorities that are rightly trying to defend their town centres that, if they allow parking charges to rise too much, they will undermine the feature that they seek to defend—although I do not blame them, because they cannot raise money in any other way.
Information is another issue that the Government should consider. Everyone goes to planning inquiries armed with all the "impact studies"—studies of what will happen if a new shop is built in a certain area. What seems to be lacking is the follow-up study two or three years after the completion of developments, to prove the correctness or otherwise of all the predictions.


Another problem is the fact that much of the available information about shopping is commercially confidential. It is easy enough for stores such as Marks and Spencer to ask the computer where their customers come from in order to assess the impact, but they are reluctant to pass on such information. The Government should find ways of providing more information about people's actual shopping habits, rather than mere predictions.
The Committee received strong evidence that good town centre management is essential to combating the decline of the town centre, as opposed to out-of-town developments. The question is, who pays? Opposition Members certainly would like local authorities to be able to set the business rate again, enabling the business community to contribute directly to those authorities.
The Committee could not agree on an appropriate mechanism, but was united on the need for arrangements to deal with town centre management. It was clear that those who were prepared to pay a voluntary levy resented the freeloaders. Although I would not say that the Committee was able to offer the Government a clear recommendation, it highlighted the problem.

Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting points about car-parking charges. As my local authority, Taunton Deane, has learnt from experience, pedestrianisation schemes may drive people away from the centre of town. I was also interested in his point about business rates and freeloaders. I hope that those in charge of the planning system will note the increasing number of charity shops, which do not pay rates, occupying vacant premises: that has led to much bitterness among shops that are trying to trade commercially.

Mr. Bennett: I shall deal shortly with the question of not just charity shops, but empty shops.
Many authorities have shown great enthusiasm for closed-circuit television surveillance, which plays an important role in making people feel safe in town centres. The desire to preserve historic centres sometimes makes parking difficult, but it is important to make people feel safe. One factor that encourages people to go to out-of-town centres is the feeling of safety that results from parking facilities that are, on the whole, obvious.
My only reservation is that, if CCTV is to be used, there will be implications for civil liberties. I therefore strongly urge the Government to come up with a code of practice. It should ensure that people know which areas are covered by the cameras and that the cameras are monitored, preferably by the police. If they monitor the cameras, the system can be effective—but that means that the cameras must be subject to regular supervision.
The temptation is just to put in the cameras, but without regular monitoring to show people that they are effective, they will become discredited, and a great deal of money will have been spent for nothing.
As part of town centre management, it is important that people try to reduce the number of empty shops. I am not sure whether I disapprove of charity shops, because it is far better that shops should be occupied—by charities, if necessary—than that they should be left empty. A row of empty shops gives a town centre a depressing feeling.
One of the problems facing business people with empty shops is that they are often reluctant to accept that they are never going to be filled, and that some alternative use

should be found for them. In Greater Manchester, there are one or two chains of betting companies that own betting shops that have closed down. As long as they are closed, no one has to admit that they are a failure: they can remain on the books with a certain value. But if people attempt to convert them to houses, or for other uses, almost certainly someone will have to write them off as a loss. It is therefore important to encourage people who have no realistic prospect of bringing their shops back into shopping use to look for alternative uses for them.
I welcome the fact that the Government have been encouraging the idea of bringing back accommodation above shops; but there is a strong argument, for some town centres, in favour of bringing the whole shop back into residential use instead of leaving it empty for a long time to create a depressing feeling in the area.
Local authorities should not just defend shopping in town centres, but should do what they can to ensure that there are as many shoppers close to the centres as possible. It is not just a question of discouraging out of town shopping areas; it is also important to discourage out of town offices. The more we can ensure that people work and enjoy their leisure in town centres, the more they will be present there to use the shops. Much of Stockport's strength as a shopping area depends on the number of people working in the offices in the town centre who can do their shopping locally at lunch time.
Another point that was put to the Committee very strongly, in the context of reinforcing town centres, concerned putting land back together. It was pointed out to us that local authorities suffer from certain restrictions on their capital acquisitions and on their ways of handling capital projects. That in turn makes it difficult for them to put packets of land back together.
Many local authorities did this in the 1960s, although they did not always produce particularly imaginative schemes for putting packets of land back together. We need more imaginative schemes for this practice, so as to defend our town centres. Local authorities need the powers to do it. There is a striking contrast between the ease with which one can put a development on a big piece of land away from the town centre and the difficulty of bringing land back to the town centre.
My next point concerns the number of planning permissions in the pipeline. Representing as I do a Greater Manchester seat, I am worried about the proposals for Dumplington, from the point of view of Tameside and Stockport. I understand that the issue has now gone to the High Court, which has discussed it, and a decision is awaited in two months' time. I do not expect the Minister to be able to say much about it because it is sub judice, but this development would cause major problems for shopping centres throughout the Greater Manchester area.
All over the country, large numbers of planning permissions granted under the old rules have never come to fruition—the projects have never been built. If the Government are serious about defending our town centres and regenerating them, they must in some way attempt to time-limit planning permissions and ensure that they do not spark off a large number of other applications.
The Government must look favourably on some of the older systems of trading. One of the strengths of the town centres of Greater Manchester has been the old markets. Ashton, in Tameside, has one of the best markets in the


north of England. It is important that local councils learn to cherish such markets. I am a little worried about Denton market, which is only barely surviving. I hope that local and central Government will do what they can to nurture the marketplace. Market traders provide small but important items to consumers—items considered too insignificant to be sold in out of town shopping areas.
I have a plea to make about Stockport. I greatly regret the fact that the 1960s-built shopping precinct has not had glass put over it. I am disappointed that the centre developers have not felt able to go that far.
I come next to a pet hate of mine: activity shopping. At the risk of boring members of the Committee, I should point out that many of my acquaintances in Manchester often tell me that they are going up to the lake district for a day out. They proceed to drive up the motorway, thereby increasing the congestion, to places such as Ambleside or Keswick. There they take five or 10 minutes in the fresh air by the lakeside. Then they go around the shops and end up buying an item of walking equipment—which they do not really use. They then have a pleasant lunch and drive back to Manchester.
I can understand that that is a nice thing to do, but it is environmentally destructive. It has meant that all the walking and climbing shops have disappeared from the centre of Manchester; meanwhile, the motorways are clogged with traffic. That is environmentally unattractive. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not agree, but they ought to think about these issues—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that people in Manchester be issued with passports so that they cannot get out?

Mr. Bennett: I am certainly not suggesting that. I do suggest that people think carefully about the environmental implications of what they are doing. I feel somewhat cynical when I see such people carrying stickers in the backs of their cars claiming that they want to protect the environment.
The same applies to trips to garden centres. I do not blame people for wanting to visit them, but when they go out to buy a compost kit, as people increasingly do from our urban centres, they create far more environmental damage in the course of their journeys than the environmental good achieved with the kit.
People need to ask themselves questions about shopping. I well understand that people in the lake district and in other environmentally sensitive areas have to earn a living, so it is attractive to them to build up their trade—but I insist that we need to think about the whole subject again.
Another of my pet hates is the McDonald's drive-in fast food outlet in Stockport, which causes major traffic congestion. I can of course see the attractions for youngsters of going to McDonald's when they have been out shopping, but it is certainly not environmentally attractive to lure people to such establishments in town centres simply so that they can drive through and take away food.
I hope that I have been able to show that ours was an interesting inquiry, which produced a useful report. We are pleased that the Government have taken so many of

our recommendations to heart. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how soon he intends to get the new planning guidance in place, and to what extent the Government will encourage more closed circuit television surveillance of town centres, which will make people feel safer.
If the public want to preserve and protect town centres, as I believe they do, they must nurture them by patronising town centre shops.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I heartily endorse most of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree that the Government have an important role in nurturing town centres, particularly in undertaking a much-needed review of the valuation system? I would like a tilting in favour of small town centre shops and a bigger burden on large supermarkets. Rates are a considerable burden on small shops having low turnovers by comparison with supermarkets having huge turnovers, to which the rating system does not matter too much.

Mr. Bennett: That should be taken into account.
I conclude by leaving in the minds of hon. Members my strong view that, if people want to protect their town centres, they must use them.

Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate the Government on arranging this debate on the Select Committee's report, and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on his contribution. Debates in response to Select Committee reports are good for the House and for the Committee system. I hope that there will be opportunities for debating other reports, particularly that on the environmental impact of leisure activities, which has generated much public concern. I may add that the Select Committee was served by two Chairmen and it would be remiss not to pay tribute to their roles in producing the report.
I thank the Government for their response to the report, which was unusually positive and generous, but perhaps the Government have not gone far enough in respect of one or two recommendations, where further clarification is needed.
The report tapped a rich vein in the extent of public concern about retail planning. It is a question not just of pressures on the countryside, because that is everywhere to be seen and is something of which the public have been aware since the Acts of Enclosure. Pressure has continued, and has become more relentless and overwhelming in the past 15 or 20 years.
It is a question also of the damage done by the change to a car-driven society and a growing car culture. It is a question of the wider environmental impact of energy consumption and pollution and of new patterns of movement. It is above all—as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish suggested—a question of the impact of retail planning policies on town centres and of the quality of life in towns and cities. As I and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) represent entirely urban constituencies, that aspect is of considerable concern to our constituents.
There is a widespread perception in this country and abroad that many British towns and cities are dirty, dark, inaccessible, unfriendly, unsafe, often extremely ugly and, by and large, to be avoided by all sensible, right-thinking


people. It is small wonder that many leading retailers have chosen to avoid them. More than a quarter of the nation's shopping space is out of town, and its proportion of sales has risen 200 per cent. since 1982. Out-of-town superstores account for one in three retail sales. Those phenomenal statistics suggest the scale of the problem confronting the Government.
That change has occurred because the planning system has allowed and encouraged it, and because of widespread ignorance of and apathy to the environmental consequences. Such a change has not occurred everywhere, as members of the Committee found on their visits. In some places, local authorities pursued sensible policies and strategies over a number of years. Most of my colleagues on the Committee would particularly commend Norwich. Even though it has a Labour-controlled council, it has implemented a coherent strategic plan over time, to ensure that Norwich—one of our historic cities—is preserved and that there is harmony between it and the surrounding countryside. Norwich has got right many of the important considerations to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred, such as parking.
Members of the Committee also visited Fribourg. It was virtually flattened in the second world war, yet it has been transformed into one of the most attractive and pleasant cities in Germany. Again, the authorities got the balance right between the city and the surrounding countryside. Fribourg is a thoroughly pleasant place in which to live, work, eat and shop. We learned a great deal from it.
I am delighted that the Government have fully taken up many of the Committee's key recommendations, including that planning guidance should be reviewed to introduce a presumption in favour of town centres, and that there should be a clear sequential test for new retail developments. The developer should be required to show that no suitable site is available in a town centre or on the edge of the town. Only then would an out-of-town centre be considered. The Government should go slightly further. It is not enough to accept the presumption in favour of town centres and the sequential test. The Government must make clear how they intend to review PPG 6, and to make a statement introducing the presumption in favour of town centres and the sequential test, which could be used by planning authorities in response to planning applications.
The Government should perhaps consider withdrawing the guidance in paragraph 37 of PPG 6, that planning authorities should not refuse permission for developments on the ground of the effect on a town centre, unless there is clear evidence to suggest that the result would undermine the centre's viability and vitality, which otherwise would continue to serve the community well. We should state quite clearly that the onus of proof should be on the out-of-town developer. I hope that, as a start, the Minister will give a clear assurance about that in his reply.
I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that we must be much clearer on the dichotomy between PPG 6 and PPG 13, especially on the issue of parking. I hope that the Minister will address that as well.
The fundamental concern for my constituents was addressed by the Committee and was the substance of the remarks by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish: the issue of town centre management, the importance of which we cannot underestimate because it can make a great difference to the quality of people's lives. The Government should get firmly behind town management

schemes and use the report and their response as starting blocks to move in that direction. As I have said, these schemes are making a great difference to people's lives.
As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will agree, the private sector is responding. I am convinced from my own experience that it will continue to respond if it is given a little extra help by the public sector, the Government and local authorities. Our experience in Blackpool, which has appointed an excellent town centre manager, Mr. Nigel Hanson, is that the private sector is waiting to respond but needs a little bit of extra Government help.
Perhaps during the party conference the Minister and the Secretary of State will look at the work that Nigel Hanson is doing and will seriously consider the beneficial impact that a closed-circuit television system could have on the quality of life and people's feeling of security in Blackpool. I hope that the Minister will add his support to the campaign by me and my hon. Friends to ensure that Blackpool gets a closed-circuit television system as soon as possible as part of the closed-circuit television competition, which I hope the Government will be able to extend.
I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) about charity shops, which are a terrible problem in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South. They are a direct result of bad planning and the reluctance of the local authority to become involved in dealing with the matter.

Mr. David Nicholson: I should like to set the record straight. I am not against charity shops, which, of course, are better than empty shops, but they cause resentment among commercial shopkeepers who have to pay rates. Perhaps I could draw my hon. Friend into examining the whole issue of business rates valuation. If a shop has not been able to force down its rent during the recession, as far as I can see it will not benefit from the rates revaluation. Some of us, certainly those of us with constituencies in the south-west and the south, are hearing from constituents who face substantial rate hoists despite five or six years of recession. That applies especially to town centre shops.

Mr. Elletson: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). We in Blackpool face a similar problem over rate valuations, and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives about the need to look again at the rating valuation system, particularly for small businesses in town centres.

Sir Donald Thompson: The number of charity shops is becoming excessive. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spoke about turning shops into houses and said that in the past local authorities have tried to put such schemes together. With all his influence, would my hon. Friend consider pressing the Minister on this gathering together of empty shops and their conversion to houses? That is done with older shop premises. Such conversions could have a theme, and should be properly constructed. Local authorities could provide pump priming to the private sector, which could take over


the shops and turn them into reasonable accommodation. By their very nature, because they have people in them, such buildings could revitalise town centres.

Mr. Elletson: My hon. Friend asks me to use my influence with the Minister, but I am sure that my influence is nowhere near as considerable as his. No doubt the Minister has heard my hon. Friend and will take note.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish did not mention an area of great concern to the 6 million disabled people in the country and the 40,000 on the Fylde coast—the issue of access for disabled people in town centres and especially shop mobility schemes. I hope that the Minister will take a serious look at that and examine ways in which assistance could be given to local authorities and the private sector to extend shop mobility schemes. That would make a great difference to the quality of people's lives.
Will the Minister look carefully at a planning application which is coming his way from a German group, LIDL Developments, which wants to build a large superstore on the outskirts of my constituency in Anchorsholme? Such a development would be highly damaging. If the application comes his way, I hope that he will ensure that it is treated with the care and consideration it deserves, and is then rejected.
As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, the key issue in town centre management is funding—so who pays? We may say that town centre management is making a real difference and that we need to extend it, but ultimately we return to the question of who pays. I was delighted to see that in their response to the Select Committee report the Government are considering ways to fund an extension to the town centre management scheme.
First, I hope that the Government will look at the question of properly funding the Association of Town Centre Management. Secondly, I hope that they will look imaginatively at ways of levering in private sector finance, perhaps through the single regeneration budget. I trust that they will also look at tax relief for private sector investors for approved projects in town centres.
Thirdly, and perhaps more controversially for some of my hon. Friends, I hope that the Government will take seriously what the Committee said about the uniform business rate. I do not ask that they return it entirely to local authorities, but I hope that they will consider some of the recommendations by the Association of Town Centre Management about a limited and exclusive return for specifically town centre-related projects. That would be an important way to address the issue and would perhaps give local authorities the ability to be realistic about town centre management programmes.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems with the uniform business rate, which I know affects his part of Blackpool as it does mine, is that banks say to small businesses, "We are revaluing your business downwards," thereby making it even more difficult for such businesses to get credit? However, the commercial valuations of the district valuer for the uniform business rate are now determined by out-of-town shopping centres and uniform business rates

are going up. That means that small businesses in our area and those in other areas are being hit both ways—revalued downwards by the bank and upwards for UBR purposes.

Mr. Elletson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As he says, it is a particular problem in our area.
I do not wish to take up any more time. These are important issues. Britain's towns and cities have undergone a fundamental qualitative change, and in many cases it has not been a change for the better.
We have to make our towns and cities places where people will again want to shop, live, eat and breathe. We have to stop the relentless destructive assault on the countryside and on our rural heritage. We have to create a climate in which, once again, town and country co-exist in harmony and with a clear mutual interest.
I know that we all recognise the problem—no one, perhaps, more clearly than my hon. Friend the Minister and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the Select Committee's report will mark the beginning of a new effort to deal with the problem. We cannot ignore it, because if we do we will condemn the richest part of our national heritage—the countryside—to gradual desolation and create a wasteland in our towns and cities.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is determined that that will not happen and that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined to move forward with new initiatives to ensure that our towns and cities are vital, vibrant and vigorous and places that we will be able to leave as our inheritance to our grandchildren.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I welcome this debate, as I did the investigation into and report of the Environment Select Committee on shopping centres and their future. The retail sector is one of the largest employers in the United Kingdom with 2.2 million full and part-time employees. The industry is both flexible and innovative and has shown itself able to compete with the best in the world.
However, recession and the continuing stagnation of consumer demand casts a shadow over recent performance. The whole debate on the future of town centres has been occasioned by the widely held view that the balance between the high street and out-of-town developments has tilted far too far in favour of the latter. I should like to be able to say that the debate and the Select Committee report are timely, but I fear that that may not be the case, because in at least one essential aspect we have all quite literally missed the boat.
A recent study has tentatively shown that 12 million sq ft of planning permission has already been granted for out-of-town developments, which I am told is enough for more than 400 new superstores. I say that tentatively because no accurate statistics are collected nationally on planning permissions or other essential research and information in the retail industry—a subject to which I shall return later.
I am a keen supporter of the concept of a plan-led system, as that is undoubtedly the best way to ensure certainty for the retail industry, local authorities and local communities. To achieve that, the planning system needs to operate efficiently and effectively, which means that


the planning guidance offered by the Government must, in the words of the Select Committee report, be "clear and consistent".
The Secretary of State has put his name to and, indeed, possibly staked his reputation on the new approach outlined in the revised PPG 6 and PPG 13, which seeks to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. However, he and Conservative Members must recognise that the Government cannot easily escape the consequences of their approach to retail developments, which they pursued with relish during the 1980s when superstore openings increased, in a headlong rush, from 212 to 580—an increase of three per month during that period, most of them in out-of-town locations.
If the Minister is looking for some confirmation that there is widespread cynicism about the planning system and the changes that he has introduced, he need look no further than a poll conducted by "Property Week" and Gallup in June 1994 of a sample of investors-developers, which showed that 45 per cent. of those surveyed believed that the changes would have no effect on their investment in out-of-town developments. In fact, 31 per cent. believed that PPG 6 and PPG 13 would result in them stepping up their out-of-town investment. Only 13 per cent. said that they would invest less in out-of-town developments. It appears that the investment-development community is yet to be convinced that the Government really have had a change of heart.
I have a particular interest in shopping centres, which I should declare at this point. As well as being a member of the all-party retail group, I am sponsored as a Member of Parliament by the Co-operative movement. My official title in the House is a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. However, I must make the point that I receive no personal remuneration for that.
The Co-operative movement is still one of Britain's largest retailers, with a turnover of £7.3 billion. It employs 74,000 staff and has membership in excess of 8 million. There are very few things that the movement does not sell through its 92 superstores and 4,500 shopping cutlets. However, the movement consists of more than 50 independent retailing organisations with a tremendous diversity both in size and shopping profile. That varies from region to region and, in the case of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, from country to country. It varies from large national societies with turnovers measured in billions of pounds to small localised co-operatives with just a few village stores.
As one would expect, the response of societies depends, as with other retailers, on their individual circumstances. Therefore, it is not possible—or, in some ways, desirable—to attempt to reconcile them, and that have not tried to do. In fact, the views that I express today are my own, but they also reflect my long involvement with the retail Co-operative movement and with the all-party retail group. I believe that in the retail world in general, but in the co-operative societies in particular, what I have to say will be of some interest.
If we are to overcome the problems highlighted in the Select Committee report and in much of the public debate on the issue, we have to overcome, in the words of the Confederation of British Industry planning task force report of 1992,
the absence of a national consensus between central and local government, business and the public about the key priorities for shaping the nation for the 21st century.

The report concluded that,
in the absence of a national lead, many significant planning applications are in danger of leading to local debates which should be encompassed by explicit national policy.
Before turning to the Select Committee report and the Department's response, I wish briefly to comment on the clear inconsistencies that continue to exist between the various policy guidance papers and ministerial statements, some of which have been highlighted in the report. I predict that the Minister will reject a charge of inconsistency. However, if he will not accept the concerns expressed in the Select Committee report, I refer him to the repeated correspondence and comment in both the trade and quality press pointing out those inconsistencies—not in an attempt to belittle the changes that have been introduced over the past two years, but to urge the Minister to address the genuine concern in the industry for a clarification of the issues.
To be fair, some of those concerns have been addressed, at least in part, by the Government. I refer to the decisions to refuse planning permission for a shopping centre at Duxford and to stop the edge-of-town supermarket at Ludlow. Many would say, "So far, so good." My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to Dumplington near Greater Manchester. No sooner did the Government refuse the applications at Duxford and Ludlow than they referred the application for planning permission at Dumplington to the House of Lords, with their support. It is a quite controversial legal case, concerning the balance between town centre and out-of-town development, and it should be a test case for the Government's new policy.
The Government have also ignored the widespread opposition in the north-west to that development. It includes almost all of the local planning authorities in the area. We can imagine, therefore, the mixture of shock and incredulity when people read in the Government's response to the Select Committee report the statement that following research carried out under the Merry Hill impact study, the Government could see little case for further new regional shopping development. Many folk would have said, "Like Dumplington." With confusion like that at the highest level, is it any wonder that planning authorities find it difficult, if not impossible, to tell rhetoric from reality?
There will be dismay at the Government's response to the Select Committee's request for clear and consistent planning guidance. Clarification in the guidance that superstores are best located in or on the edge of town centres, and a clear statement that the Department supports the sequential test—that planning permission outside the town centre will not be given if a suitable site within or close by is available—must be the minimum requirements if the Government's stated intentions are to be taken at face value.
I believe in towns centres, both as retailing areas and as a focus, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned, for communities and community activities. I am not overstating the case in saying that it is generally agreed that the most practical response to promoting town centres—making them safe, cleaner, more attractive and more relevant to local people's needs—is to develop town centre management. Surely it is common ground to suggest that that must be based on partnership between all the relevant parties to ensure that it is effective.


Great strides have already been made. Only a few years ago, there was only one full-time town centre manager; now there are more than 80. Major constraint exists on that development because of finance. The Government response does not get to grips with the issue.
Dumping the problem on hard-pressed local authorities, especially in the context of a series of restrictive, Government-imposed revenue support grant settlements, will not lead to a solution. Many local authorities are too small to be able to respond effectively to the demands of their town centres. Retailers naturally feel aggrieved that they are having to fork out in the form of the uniform business rate to local communities without any return in terms of dealing with their problems. That causes complaint.
The Government should not only co-ordinate the development of town centre managements or, as suggested in the report, town centre authorities, but should take the lead in providing the finance that will allow them to respond to the needs of local communities. That will not only enhance their shopping facilities, but put the heart back into town centres.
I mentioned earlier the lack of adequate research on planning and retail development. The report has made a number of welcome suggestions. Again, the Government have not gone far enough in recognising the urgent need for credible information; otherwise, how can local plans be developed or decisions on major retail development determined with any certainty? This and any future Government have a duty to collect and make available accurate information.
Effective decision-making must be clear, consistent and, most important, above reproach. It must based on relevant and up-to-date information. Only Government can provide that. The planning system will achieve the objectives set by Government and local planning authorities only if both have available data that are collected, analysed and freely available, so that public can be confident of the decisions taken on their behalf.
I turn now to the recommendations and planning obligations, the consequences of which are usually summed up in the term "planning gain". The Select Committee describes current guidance as "muddled". Recent court decisions have added considerable confusion to that muddle. To the layman, or at least to this layman, the courts appear to contradict themselves over the issue of whether a planning gain is a material consideration when determining a planning application. The latest of those cases awaits a decision in the other place. I accept that the Department must await their Lordships' deliberations, but it must come as a surprise, not to say a disappointment, that they have agreed only to consider further the recommendation to issue new guidance on planning obligations.
That response is breathtaking in its failure to recognise the concerns being expressed by all parties in all regions. There are many examples of that in Plymouth and Leicester, where planning gains have been mentioned, and where confusion and uncertainty exists about local authorities' response to them. I hope that the Government will strengthen considerably their endorsement of the

principle that unacceptable development should never be permitted, and that planning gain should not be allowed to render it acceptable.
Finally, I have an admission. I recognise, as, I think, most fair-minded people do, that—as in so many other areas of planning—finding the proper balance between shopping centres and out-of-town developments is a difficult and thankless task. Retailing is a dynamic industry and must remain flexible and innovative if it is to be as successful in the future as it has been in the past. However, we must recognise that what is best for the individual as a consumer is sometimes not seen by that individual to be in his or her best interests as a local resident.
Government policies must reflect consumer needs, but I hope that no one will support the free-for-all that has taken place in the United States of America, to the detriment of everyone. The Government must take a longer-term view and seek to balance the needs of the retail industry with the demand to create vital and viable town centres. Clarity and consistency in the planning regime, while not a sufficient condition, will assist in ensuring that the proper balance is maintained and, at the same time, will deliver real choice to the individual, both as consumer and as defender of his or her community. That responsibility is incumbent on Government.

Mr. Roy Thomason: People who believe that the only interest in politics is confrontation will be a little bored by this evening's debate, as it is clear that there is substantial agreement across the Chamber about the report and its recommendations. I welcome the Government's acceptance of much of what has been said. Of course, there will be some arguments around the periphery. I would not want to disappoint hon. Members who enjoy confrontation, but the substance is agreed.
In the spirit of that agreement, I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), in congratulating the work of the two previous Chairmen of the Select Committee, to whom we owe a great deal. It is interesting that, in his ministerial duties, one of them has managed to avoid having to respond to the debate, but they both contributed substantially to the Committee's work and, in particular, to this report.
I must ask myself why we all want to support town centres. What is it about them that is attractive to us and that leads us to rush to their defence in the face of clearly changing patterns, change that is continuing? It is a little like the people who drive on motorways and complain about the cars in front of them that are causing obstructions and emitting fumes. "How disgraceful," they say. "These people should be taken off the motorways so that we can make our journey more speedily." Almost the same pattern of thought applies to shopping. People wish to preserve town centres and they want their facilities to be available, but they are often reluctant to spend their money there. They potter off to the nearest out-of-town centre rather than to their local shop.
We want town centre shopping to be preserved and sustained because the town centre is the historic core of the community. People relate to it; they have a sense of belonging. For people in villages, towns and cities, the town centre represents an element of continuity, which


people want to preserve. All of us need to belong somewhere. When we have a focal point in our town centres, that belonging is personified. The sense of community among all of us, and the need to avoid rootlessness and the lack of responsibility that follows from that, are perhaps the most important factors.
I am not, of course, suggesting that the preservation of town centres is of the essence in fighting crime or in maintaining a proper and reasonable way of life in this country—I should not wish to exaggerate the point. But it is necessarily a part of community life, of belonging and of the feeling of responsibility and of sharing that goes with those factors.
There are other reasons why we should want to preserve town centres. The existence of local shops means that people do not have to travel, which reduces their mileage. We need to preserve town centres for those who do not have ready access to vehicles. We need town centres to provide variety and choice. Too often, as we go from one supermarket to another or from one warehouse to another, we see the same products presented in the same way. If retailing in this country is to rejuvenate and renew itself, remain attractive and offer new opportunities, there must be variety and choice, which town centres in particular can provide.
Above all, we need to ensure that town centres stay alive and do not fall into decay and become simply another example of inner-city failure and economic problems. We need to prevent buildings from falling into disuse and to avoid the disrepair that goes with it.
Many of us perhaps approach the planning system with some trepidation because we like market forces to prevail and want the spirit of market forces to allow people to choose where to shop and how to operate. However, I believe that the whole concept of the planning system is that market forces are channelled and shaped according to other criteria. Unless we dispense altogether with the paraphernalia of planning procedures, we need to ensure that planning is directed in what we consider to be the best interests of the country as a whole.
I start from the premise that planning must be directed towards the rejuvenation of inner-city areas, but what are the great advantages of out-of-town shopping centres, which encourage people to go there rather than elsewhere? Out-of-town shopping is clearly convenient, being under one roof or a series of connected roofs. Access is by car, making the removal of heavy purchases easy. There is security, tidiness and cleanliness. In addition, people can expect a certain quality of goods and service. Out-of-town shopping centres are cost-effective and provide a leisure activity. People find it fun to shop—my wife tells me that regularly, but I have yet to understand the "fun" involved.
Having considered the advantages of out-of-town shopping centres, we must consider how town centres can compete. Hon. Members have referred to car parking policies. There is a need to ensure that car parking spaces are available and at a price that encourages people to use them. Unlike the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, I do not accept that we should impose on local authorities a duty to provide free car parking. That must be a local decision made by local government taking into account local considerations, not least its own financial position. However, we should wherever possible ensure that parking is cheap in order to encourage the short-term use of car parking.
There is a need to readdress the issues dealt with in PPG 13 relating to the differentiation between the commuter and the customer. Commuter parking should be treated differently from customer parking and encouragement given for the latter. We must ensure that local authority car parking provision is of a high standard. In other words, it must be not only cheap and convenient but secure, clean and tidy.
The Automobile Association recently produced some information relating to why people choose not to use multi-storey car parks. Over 35 per cent. of those asked said that they did not wish to use them because they did not feel safe doing so. Just under 10 per cent. found them too dark or creepy, whatever that means. I suspect that those feelings relate to security, cleanliness and tidiness. If town centres are to compete, it is essential that they provide the right sort of car parking. Traffic management schemes are necessary to avoid congestion, and convenient car parking is of the essence.
We have to examine ways in which controls should be imposed on out-of-town centres. We shall not change the habit whereby most people do their weekly food shopping at a supermarket or similar establishment. People's shopping aspirations and requirements in that respect will not lead them back into the town centre in large numbers, but we need to examine what town centres are best at providing. They can offer convenience shopping and quality goods such as clothes and accessories, in which they can compete better than out-of-town centres.
We need to look critically at the number of building societies, banks, estate agents and—I must declare an interest—solicitors' offices that sap the retail core of the town centre and reduce the number of people passing the shop door, which goes to the heart of an individual outlet's economy. We need to limit the activity of factory outlets and introduce coherent retail policies as part of the regional planning guidance through to the local planning system. There needs to be an overall view of the impact that out-of-town shopping, or even major edge-of-town shopping, may have on trading patterns in an individual structure plan area, not a local plan area but a regional and sometimes even an inter-regional area, because the largest centres have a widely felt impact.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Where has the hon. Gentleman been recently? It is the Government who have been destroying the concept of regional planning or the planning of town centres. Out-of-town shopping has grown at the expense of towns such as Huddersfield, where the only diversity is offered by the different charity shops, not even by solicitors' offices or shops offering the interesting goods that he described. The Government have consistently sought to destroy our town centres.

Mr. Thomason: What has happened to town centres is that local authorities have granted planning consents for out-of-town and edge-of-town shopping. There has been no rejuvenation of town centres. Such rejuvenation is not only a component of the operation of central Government but, to a much greater extent, a matter for local government and individual shopkeepers, landowners and others. I shall deal more fully with that issue in a moment.
We need to examine the production of impact studies on an agreed basis. We must ensure that planning appeals can be fought with an understanding of exactly what an


impact study is, what the criteria for it may be and how we assess regional shopping patterns that might develop as a result of the granting of a planning application.
Design needs to be improved. I do not think that the Government should draw up criteria for design—that must be for individual developers and their architects—but there is a need for better design that is seen to be friendly. Architectural expression is moving in that direction. The quality of building today is far better than it was 30 or 40 years ago—one has only to look at the Department of the Environment's office to realise that—but there is still more to be done. We need to make town centre developments friendly.
I did not agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish when he referred to local authorities assembling quantities of land and being seen as the landowners, if that is what he meant. There is, however, a role for local authorities to be the leaders in partnerships with the private sector that assemble land and create development opportunities in town centres for retail use. I entirely agree with those who have argued that town centres require co-ordinated management; I return to the point that I made a moment ago. Not only is town centre management, to which hon. Members have rightly referred, required. A proper partnership must be created between local authorities and shopkeepers, the lessees, and the landowners, the lessors.
If landowners simply seek to extract the highest possible rents from their premises, they will in the end sap vitality from the trading units. It is necessary to encourage landowners to look at the longer term, to the advantages of a buoyant shopping centre with longer-term rent growth and improvement in the value of their investments. They must consider it in a holistic sense, rather than on the basis of individual units, as has been done in the past. There is no encouragement for a landowner to look long term if the shop owners next door are pursuing a short-term policy. We must bring everybody together—the diverse landowners as well as the diverse lessees, the local authorities, the chambers of commerce and all other interested bodies—to seek to create a unified approach to the sustenance of the town centre.
In bringing more people into town centres, we need to allow shopkeepers to provide a better price structure because of the greater throughput of goods. The introduction of security cameras in the high streets is an important development. It has certainly been extremely important in my area of Bromsgrove. Above all, the shop owners, the lessees, must ensure that they provide a good service. It is quite useless us talking about the way in which we want to see town centres develop if the shopkeepers themselves do not work to produce a friendly service for their customers, quality goods and the right approach to retailing.
Street cleaning must be examined carefully because dirty streets put people off. It may be appropriate to encourage public transport in certain places and to appoint a town centre manager to co-ordinate the shopping centre as a whole. The Select Committee felt that progress could be made in all those areas.
There is clear evidence that people want town centres to survive and that market forces can, through the planning system, be channelled to meet the challenge of decaying centres. We must avoid urban decay by ensuring that our

town centres fight back. We have the opportunity to achieve that. If we leave it much longer, that chance will have been lost for all time.

Mr. David Rendel: I shall begin by referring to the shop mobility scheme, which was mentioned earlier, and give the House the very good news that, while just one district council in Berkshire is at present run by the Liberal Democrats with an overall majority, that same council, Newbury district council, has introduced a shop mobility scheme. I welcome the support for shop mobility schemes expressed by Conservative Members.
I also welcome the Government's change in attitude to megastores, which have sprung up so often outside our town centres. As other hon. Members have said, that change of attitude has come somewhat too late. There is no doubt that most people believe that the existing number of megastores, except in one or two rare instances, is sufficient to meet the demand from the public and that those still in the pipeline are excessive and well beyond the public's needs.
For far too long, the Government have been siding with the major shopping centre developers in moving retailing into the green-field sites out of our town centres. In reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason), that move cannot be blamed on the local authorities, which have been hampered by the Government's planning guidance and the Government's bias towards out-of-town centres, which was prevalent before the past few weeks and months.
Three areas of our national life have suffered as a result of the growth of out-of-town shopping centres. First, the town centres and especially the small retailers in them have suffered a loss of business as a result of the vast increase in the number of megastores. Secondly, those who do not have their own cars have suffered, especially the poorest members of our community—the elderly and often the unemployed. Such people have in some cases been deprived of adequate shopping facilities. What is more, because they are on the whole the poorest members of the community, they are most in need of the cheapest prices in the very shops to which they are unable to travel—the megastores in the old green-field sites. Thirdly, the environment and the general quality of life have suffered.
Two aspects of the environment have been hit particularly hard. The role of town centres as hubs of social life has been diminished, creating many problems as a result of an increase in the crime rate. There are now greater opportunities for crime in our town centres as they become deserted in the evening and fewer people are there during the day to watch out for what is going on. Our intensified car culture, supported by the Thatcher era, has meant much more air pollution, not least due to the use of cars for getting to out-of-town centres. Shopping out of town has increased congestion and traffic pollution, at great cost to the environment.
The shift in policy announced in the Government's response to the report of the Environment Select Committee is generally encouraging. I appreciate in particular the Secretary of State's contribution in helping


to bring about that change of heart. I must make, however, one or two qualifications while welcoming the change in the Government's latest position.
I am concerned that the Government are not going far enough with their changes to PPG 6, as other hon. Members have said. Indeed, there is considerable cross-party agreement on what continues to be wrong with the Government's policies. The onus has been placed on local authorities to prove that an out-of-town centre would be damaging and that the retail facilities can be offered in the town. I believe that the onus should be on the developers to prove that there is a real need for an out-of-town shopping centre, not only that such a shopping centre cannot be provided in the town. The Government have softened their line on that matter, but concerns remain that the burden of proof has not been and must be properly shifted on to the developers.
I also question the basic assumption that, just because a large new shopping centre may be profitable, it is automatically desirable simply because the large chain stores and developers wish to see it go ahead. The smaller retailers hold a very important place in this nation of shopkeepers and they, too, deserve fair consideration.
I stress once again the importance that the Government should be placing on the flats-over-shops scheme. I was promoting that scheme before the Government took it up, which I welcomed. I am only sorry that it did not prove as successful as it might have been had the Government been prepared to provide greater grants to enable the scheme to work properly.
Town centres need local residents as well as shoppers if they are to be centres of vitality and viability, as the Government have suggested. Transforming offices over shops into flats has several advantages. There would be added security in town centres as people return to live there and walk around the streets in the evening after the shoppers have gone home. It would also be advantageous to the town centre retail trade, because customers would be close at hand, and therefore more likely to want to shop in town centre shops. There is an advantage in that the need for transport is reduced. That is of particular interest to people who do not have their own transport. Town centres are often the best places to live for the elderly or for those who, for one reason or another, cannot afford or do not wish to have their own transport.
Finally, and just as important, those areas produce a ready supply of cheap rented accommodation. We are all aware of the importance of that. A more vigorous promotion of the flats-over-shops scheme would benefit town centre retail businesses and it would make a great contribution to the homelessness problem. In essence, it would improve the overall quality of life in our town centres.
Car parking is also an important part of the problem. We must improve the quality of car parking and not just the quantity of spaces available in our town centres. Simply building more car parks will not solve the problem. I am sure that we are all aware of how reluctant people are to use multi-storey car parks rather than road-level car parks. By the very nature of things, it is very often impossible in our town centres to provide more road-level car parking. Because of pedestrianisation schemes, which may be of great benefit to retailers, road-level car parking has often been reduced.
Where multi-storey car parks are the only option, they must be properly lit. They must be covered by closed circuit television. We may even need security guards to remove not just crime, but the fear of crime. That is the only way to encourage the proper use of multi-storey car parks.
We must also encourage the use of car parking spaces at ground level in our town centres for short-term shopping visits rather than for commuter use whereby commuters park their cars at 8.30 am, leave them in one space throughout the day, and then take them out as the shops close.
The Government have an opportunity to consider schemes to encourage businesses to, in turn, encourage their employees to consider car sharing, to make more use of cycles or public transport and to make use of park-and-ride schemes wherever they are available. Such schemes would free up spaces that are currently being used by commuters, to allow them to be used by shoppers for short-term parking.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's change of heart. We are only sorry that it is so guarded and has come so late.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I am grateful to the Environment Select Committee and to the Government for the opportunity to discuss out-of-town and inner-city-centre shopping. By its very nature, that is a subject on which we all consider ourselves to be experts because we all shop—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): indicated dissent.

Dr. Twinn: Obviously, my hon. Friend the Minister tries to avoid doing the shopping as much as possible. However, as a result of the Jopling reforms, Back Benchers find themselves with slightly more time and our wives have probably exploited the situation, so we are perhaps experiencing more shopping than used to be the case.
The subject is not so easy as some of our constituents may believe. Whenever a new superstore is proposed, my postbag is full of letters saying that the proposal is ridiculous and that we have far too many such stores. The letters ask why on earth we need another superstore in the area. I am often asked why people cannot be content to use the existing shops in Enfield town or Edmonton Green in my constituency, but the truth is that they abandon such places: people who have cars—two thirds of households now have cars—drive out and park in the flat car parks beside the big superstores because those places are very convenient.
I suspect that much of the unease about the subject arises not from the fact that the new retail parks are being developed, but because people feel slightly guilty about the decline of the existing town centres which, as hon. Members have rightly said, people feel great affection for and affinity with and in which they enjoy shopping.
There is also considerable concern about the loss of green-field sites. As an outer London suburban Member, I am aware of the great concern if there is a threat to the green-field sites surrounding London. However, I am also greatly concerned when we lose brown-field sites in my constituency where once manufacturing thrived and where


it would thrive again, if large supermarkets were not built on those sites, because the area now has assisted area status once again and those areas would be attracting inward development.
There is a great problem. As I am a planner, the House will not be surprised if I support the concept that there should be planning of retail provision. However, if there is to be planning, people must make up their minds about what is required. That involves councillors and my former colleagues, planning officers. Some of my former students must make up their minds about exactly what they want for their areas.
From my observations of planning over the years, I believe that councils have been rather loth to make up their minds categorically about what they want for their areas. There are several problem areas. Local authorities have had mixed feelings, because they did not want to lose retailers from their local authority areas. If a large retailer threatens to go somewhere else, the temptation is to agree to a planning permission within a local authority area although, at heart, some of those councillors and planning officers would rather the retailer stayed in the centre. Although that is not actually a form of blackmail, it is a difficult decision for local authorities to make. It does not matter which party is in control of the authority; the decision is very difficult. I sympathise with the councillors, but that position has led to the confusion that surrounds the subject.
There has been a great feeling among councillors and planning officers that even if they were to have a firm policy—a straight no to out-of-town shopping—the planning appeals system would deliver a firm yes as soon as the appeal went through. That has not always been put to the test because the fear of that happening has meant that authorities have agreed to something with which they perhaps would rather not have agreed. I welcome the Government's shift in emphasis to return more power to local councillors so that they can make up their own minds about exactly what they want in respect of retailing in their areas.
The biggest problem in terms of planning for retailing has been the lack of long-term strategic planning, although not in a regional context. Although the regional problem is important, the structure plan, development plan and local plan system is fairly cumbersome and it takes a considerable time. In that regard, we may be talking about development plans which were developed eight, nine or even 10 years ago and in respect of which decisions are now being made.
As we are now to have unitary authorities, those authorities may be too small physically to have responsibility to decide where out-of-town shopping should be located because out of town may be beyond a unitary authority's boundaries. We may need a regional system to provide a proper strategic approach to planning.
That problem is easily overcome with good will. The real problem is that councillors have not taken a long-term strategic view about what they want for retailing in their areas. Norwich, a Labour-controlled authority, has been cited as a good example. In the post-war years, it has stood out like a beacon as a town with a fairly clear view of what it wants. It has not made many mistakes, and in planning circles Norwich is lauded as a fine example of what can be achieved.
However, Norwich is a stand-alone city in a rural area. That makes it a little easier to plan than a London borough which is cheek by jowl with another London borough or perhaps cheek by jowl with another county as my constituency is with regard to Essex and Middlesex. Those historical rivalries continue even when it comes to planning. One cannot look over the border very clearly.
Some of the problems with the decline of city centres have to do with the failure of local authorities to decide what should happen in their areas. It is an unpopular subject today, but part of the problem is that road plans were not implemented. As a result, towns were not attractive locations for retailing or as places for people to drive into to do the shopping. The stark fact facing all of us, all local authorities and all retailers, is that people choose to do their major bulk shopping by car.
I remember the days, under a Labour Government, when I was a town planning lecturer. I had a mortgage, and when my car broke down I had to decide whether to pay the mortgage or to repair my car. Of course, I kept the house, which was a reasonable decision. I used to cycle to work and to Sainsburys. I probably broke the highway code on many occasions by balancing four carrier bags on my handlebars coming back—I was pushing the bicycle, of course. These days, with two children and a lot more packaging, I am not sure that we could get our carload of shopping on to two, three, or even four bicycles. Nor do I particularly want to do so in a busy life.
Like my constituents, I am schizophrenic when it comes to shopping. I like the town centre, but when it comes to going to Tesco, Sainsbury's, Safeway or Waitrose, I choose to go to a convenient location with free parking in good, well-lit car parks, hand my card over, take all my shopping back in boxes and bags to the car and drive away again. If I went to Enfield town, I would have to queue for a parking place. If I went to Edmonton Green, I would not have to queue, but I would have to pay. The car parks are a long way from the shops and involve the use of lifts—when they are working—and possibly even the deposit of a coin to take my trolley away. There is a mental barrier to all of those.
Local councils have to think more clearly about what they want for their towns. That may well mean making some politically incorrect decisions, which might include better roads and free parking schemes. We cannot avoid public demand in deciding any of that and it is no good any of us feeling that we can fool the market, which is the demand for the kind of shopping that people want. I do not think that councillors, Members of Parliament or planning officers are the best judges of what is demanded.
We should be concentrating on finding ways to boost existing centres. It is not for us to rule out the possibility of out-of-town or out-of-city sites, but we need to make existing centres more competitive because, although one third of households do not have cars, in constituencies such as mine the figure would be much higher as there are many elderly people and, I regret to say, quite a number of unemployed even after the remarkable improvement in the unemployment figures announced today. Those people need shops close by.
I want Edmonton Green to thrive and I want new shops to come into my area, but I also want choice. For me, one of the great advantages of town-centre sites over the retail parks is the variety of shops. It is convenient to go to a single-store site, or to one of the multiple parks, where all the chain stores and shoe shops are lined up together, but


it has a limited appeal. I like to go to a city centre, where there is a variety of different types of shop. With different rents in different streets, we can have shops which would find it impossible to compete in the new out-of-town centres.
There is something very lively and-for someone who believes in the market system—vibrant in a town centre where a variety of different landlords are prepared to accept different rents and lease conditions, which means a greater range of shops. Some of the failures of existing town centres are caused when ownership is concentrated in too few hands. Edmonton Green is a classic example. It is wholly owned and run by the council, and is good proof that local authorities are not good organisations to run commercial centres.
I have a strong affinity with wanting town centres to survive, but local authorities have a responsibility when it comes to car parking. As hon. Members have pointed out, parking is one of the key factors affecting our perception of where to shop. City and town centres have to compete, and for my money that means that parking must be free. If local authorities expect to get income from car parks, they are fooling themselves, and so are the retailers. They must get together and sort out the problem.
At the same time, car parks must be well lit and secure. As joint chairman of the all-party lighting group, hon. Members will hardly be surprised to hear that I am delighted that there is all-party support for better lighting. Our very strong group in the House will be writing to every Member who has spoken out today in favour of better lighting, inviting them to join our group.
In the end, it is not down to local authorities, but to retailers to sort themselves out. They have to help themselves. They can get involved with car parking and can talk to local authorities to ensure that it is easily accessible, free and of a much higher standard than hitherto. They can get together to appoint town centre managers—a development that I welcome. The Select Committee on the Environment highlighted how experienced and useful managers can be, especially if they come from the retail sector rather than from local authorities. They bring acute commercial awareness to running town centres, are trusted by shopkeepers and shop owners and are able to work together with the local authority. I would certainly support that.
Shopkeepers and owners can also help to invest in refurbishment and not merely in their own buildings. That is terribly important, as no one will want to go shopping in a run-down centre or one where shops have lost their enthusiasm to trade, the window displays are not changed properly, they are not well lit and shop assistants are unfriendly. To a major retailer, all those factors are very important and a basic part of any retailer's training.
Shopkeepers and owners can also get together with the local authority and help to refurbish streets in town centres. They can invest some of their own money. Many local authorities are already approaching retailers to do just that. Retailers rightly say, "But we already pay rates." The trouble is that the rates no longer go to the local authority. Whereas before there was a contract between the local authority and the retailer and some pressure could be brought to bear on the authority, the uniform business rate means that that has gone. That was one of the big disadvantages that Conservative Members clearly recognised when it was introduced. I understand that

retailers may be loth to invest their own money, but if they are genuinely committed to remaining in town centres they must consider contributing to refurbishment.
The Government must consider ways to encourage retailers to do that. This point is more for the Treasury than for Environment Ministers. Capital allowances could form a useful way of encouraging retailers to invest, not in their premises, but in the streets outside. Some items of spending already attract a capital allowance of a third over eight years, but that is not a lot when one is looking at the bottom line every year.
For example, street lighting attracts a capital allowance, as does street furniture, signs, bus shelters, traffic lights—and even parking meters, although the Treasury could knock those off the list and gain great popular applause. Widening pavements, putting in pedestrian crossings and taxi ranks, and investing in car parks do not attract capital allowances, even under the present arrangement of one third over eight years. The Treasury and the Government could well afford to look again at how capital allowances work, as a positive way of encouraging partnership in our town centres. If support for the capital allowance system is all that comes out of the Select Committee report, it will be a great step forward.
I will stop at this point to allow other hon. Members to contribute, but I must repeat how important this subject is and how important it is for us not to jump on to the bandwagon of being anti-car. Although the public write to tell us that there should not be any out-of-town centres, the very next moment they get in their cars and go and do their shopping there.

Mr. John Denham: My first involvement in the issue of out-of-town shopping was in 1976, when I was the transport campaigner for Friends of the Earth, and I appeared as a witness at a public inquiry in Nottingham. It is quite striking that the arguments which I put on behalf of Friends of the Earth at that inquiry were, in essence, the same as the arguments expressed in the report of the Select Committee, and those arguments have been accepted in much of the Government's response. It is an encouraging and enjoyable experience to move from the fringe of political argument to the centre ground, and it is even more encouraging to have done so without having to change one's views in the process.
There has been a transformation of attitude about the issue, and about the underlying transport and environmental questions which it has raised. I welcome the profound change of heart which seems to have taken place within the Government during the past year to 18 months. The Government are in what might be described as the denial stage of bereavement, as they lay their previous and much-loved policies to rest. To hear the speeches of Conservative Members, it would seem that the planning decisions and disasters of the past 15 years had nothing to do with the policy of the Government, or with the people who have held ministerial rank during that period.
I do not want to destroy the cosy consensus which existed in the Committee and has coloured much of the debate, but it would be appropriate if the Government were at some point to say sorry for the damage their


policies did during the 1980s and the early 1990s to so many town and city centres. That damage was done by what was in essence unplanned development.
It was not, by the way, just the Government who participated in what happened. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) outline the Liberal Democrats' position on the issue. Those of us in the Southampton area might have less reason to complain about ou-of-town shopping if the Liberal Democrats had not approved the Hedge End shopping centre in the mid-1980s when they controlled Eastleigh council. They then spent the next ten years campaigning against it, and saying how bad out-of-town shopping was for the existing town centres. Some consistency in planning policies is necessary.

Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me make the point that, in practice, local authorities were very much constrained by Government regulation and by Government guidance. There was very little that local authorities could do about the huge proliferation of out-of-town shopping centres, which occurred, sometimes, much to their dismay.

Mr. Denham: I believe that local authorities retain the right to oppose developments which are damaging, and to test that within the Government system. The Hedge End development was not the only example of which the Committee was made aware where local authorities had taken decisions within their boundaries, which, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) said, sometimes had an impact on somebody else's shopping centre.
I am not convinced that the Government's response to the Select Committee report has really taken on board the Committee's recommendations on regional guidance for shopping centres. The Government seem to have interpreted our report as simply talking about huge regional shopping centres.
My view of our discussions in Committee was that we thought that a large number of out-of-town shopping centres had implications across district and county council boundaries, and if any such projects came forward in the future, we would need clear regional planning guidance on shopping. I hope that the Minister can answer that point, as the response that we have had so far from the Government has fallen well short of the commitment that the Committee was looking for on that issue.
Out-of-town shopping developments in the Southampton area, and incremental developments along the M27, have caused damage in a number of different ways. First, trade has been diverted away from the existing shopping centres. Secondly—this is often not remarked upon—there is the sheer cost in time and resources to local authorities, which have faced constant battles to resist unwanted out-of-town shopping developments. Some of those inquiries have been lost, although Southampton was successful in defeating the Adanac park development, which was planned to have nearly 1 million sq ft of shopping area, and would have done enormous damage to the city.
Such a planning inquiry consumes enormous resources, as councils must pay QCs to represent them. Many of those costs would have been unnecessary had there been stronger Government planning guidance during the 1980s and early 1990s.
The third example of the damage done by planning policies is one which, on reading the report after a few months, I do not think the Committee emphasised sufficiently. The uncertainties of town centre retailers and property owners caused by the threat of out-of-town shopping was a major effect on undermining the confidence of the companies and investors in the existing town centres. Even where a retailer or a property company was committed to remaining in a town or city centre, the fear that another out-of-town development would get approval this year or next year was a major disincentive to investment.
Looking again at the report, I wish now that we had stressed clearly that we need to produce a consistent and reliable framework for retail planning which can give investors from the private sector long-term confidence in their investment decisions. They would then know that, if they choose to invest in an existing town or city centre, they will have 10, 15 or 20 years of security, which will enable their investment to be well rewarded.
Resisting further out-of-town shopping development is only half the answer to the problem, and revitalising town and city centres is the other key point. Investment will be central to that revitalisation, the vast bulk of which will come from the private sector. I do not believe that money will materialise unless the private sector can plan with confidence.
The second element which the private sector is clearly looking for is long-term confidence in partnerships which can be established between private investors and the public sector, and particularly the local authorities. Private sector investors will need to know—not just for six months or a year—that there will be stability in planning policies, and that there is a clear vision of how each town and city will develop. They will want to know that there will be an effective and well-resourced structure for town centre management in the long term.
The private sector will also want to have confidence in the ability of the public sector to deliver the essential elements of a town or city centre revival which the private sector, retailers and property owners cannot provide. Those include improved public transport, upgraded car parking, an improved street environment and the effective co-ordination of crime prevention.
In those areas, contributions can be secured from the private sector, but it will be the responsibility of the public sector—the local council in particular—to organise and provide those elements. The private sector must know in the long term that local authorities will have the resources, which is very much a matter for the Government, and the commitment, which is very much a matter for the local authorities, to play that role effectively over a long time.
It is also important that we find the means of taking the public with us as the town and city centre revivals take place. My experience in Southampton showed that it was difficult to persuade many members of the public that new investment and new retail centres in Southampton were necessary, when, in the middle of a recession, there were clearly a large number of empty shop units being unused. It was not uncommon to open a local newspaper and read a letter asking why we needed more shops, when there were empty shops already.
It is important that we find ways of explaining to the public that, if we want town and city centres to revive, we must allow them to grow and develop. With the possible


exception of the very historic town centres, they will change, as they have always changed throughout history. Each part of the process will change the shape, activity and nature of the town or city centre.
It is important to find ways of involving local residents, shoppers, potential shoppers and users of leisure and cultural activities in the planning of local town centres so that they have the confidence in the vision that the public and private sector partnership is putting forward.
A proven example of that in my constituency was the decision to work with the local institute of higher education to transform a not first-rate department store into a major educational building in the city centre for use by an institution of higher education. Because of its location, it brings together a cultural and educational quarter involving theatres, arts centres, art galleries and now a major educational building. It brings into the city centre many young people—a new group of the population that had not previously been actively involved in the life of the city centre.
Such changes will be essential in many towns and cities. It is not simply a matter of better shops and improved access to them, although that is part of the solution. Our vision for city centres must embrace the whole life of the city centre and the various reasons why people want to go there. After all, it is that type of attraction which out-of-town centres cannot provide. They may provide shops a car park next to them, but developers will not build new theatres, art galleries and educational institutions by motorways. Those city centre activities should be closely linked to the development of retailing and city and town centre development.
Having mentioned some of the pressures that Southampton has been under, may I make a few points about the future? I am fortunate in that my city is uniquely placed to resist the pressures of out-of-town development, because it has such a large development area next to the city centre. Through that, we can compete on more direct terms than many towns and cities with the attractions of out-of-town shopping.
One phase of development is already committed, providing large, open shopping areas that will sell the type of goods often only available in out-of-town venues, at an investment of some £30 million. I hope that, in the near future, there will be further announcements of significant investment in retail development in the centre of Southampton. It shows that, with some confidence on the part of local authorities and the willingness to plan clearly, it is possible to attract substantial investment back into city centres and secure their long-term future.
I hope that the Minister will say more about the need to consolidate the town centre management process. Southampton is one of many local authorities that have appointed a town centre manager, but, as yet, the system for town centre management goes nowhere near providing the sound basis for the partnership between town centre retailers, property owners and local authorities which will be necessary to make it truly effective.
As our Committee found in its inquiry, and as we find in Southampton, even on the current basis, town centre managers can achieve a great deal, but we shall need more reliable sources of funding that tie in all the retailers within a centre and avoid the problems of free riders, if the potential of town centre management is to be realised.
Although the Government said that they are looking into that question, we must push them to respond more positively. The single regeneration budget is not an adequate response to the problem, because its application is patchy. In the summer, the Committee will look again in detail at the single regeneration budget and its application to town centre revitalisation. We cannot have a lottery in which some local authorities receive money to develop their town centres while others do not, which is what the single regeneration budget implies. We need a consistent mechanism that is available to all towns and cities that need funds for town centre management.
Finally, I renew the plea made by the Chairman of the Committee. A swift response from the Government on the matters which they say they are considering is absolutely essential. I return to the fundamental point: that we must have an environment that encourages confidence in the long-term future of towns and cities, and encourages investors to believe that they can afford to invest long-term, knowing that they are making a sensible decision. The new planning guidance and decisions on the funding of town centre management need to be in place at the earliest possible opportunity if that investment confidence is to be achieved in all the towns and cities that need investment.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Environment Select Committee's inquiry, "Shopping Centres and their Future", generated by far the greatest interest of any inquiry in this Parliament. I pay tribute to one of its former Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), who was instrumental in bringing us all together and whose input into the report was significant. I also pay tribute to his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and to the current Chairman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), whose speech we heard this evening.
I am one of the few chartered surveyors in the House, so the inquiry had particular relevance to me. I represent an area that is 80 per cent. designated in planning terms in one way or another, so my planning problems are particularly acute, not least with the new wave of out-of-town applications which the smaller market towns are beginning to experience now that the recession is coming to an end. The inquiry was therefore of particular interest to me.
In Victorian and Edwardian times, altruistic landowners invested significant sums in our towns and cities and, together with some conscientiously minded citizens, produced what used to be called "civic pride". Towns and cities used to compete with each other as to which had the best architecture and recreational facilities and which was the tidiest. Unfortunately, the two world wars came along, and many of those magnificent towns and cities took an awful battering.
The business rate was introduced after the second world war, and many of our towns and cities were caned by local authorities, who could use the business sector as an easy source of finance. It was not until this Government came along and introduced the universal business rate that we began to get some sanity back and encourage businesses to consider investing in town centres.
As many hon. Members have said, investment is the key to encouraging the vitality and viability of our town and city centres. That investment must be channelled in a way that does not benefit just the individual shop owner.
One of the key recommendations of the inquiry was to form town centre management schemes. By those schemes, all the partners can be brought together. Those include the local authority, which must play a leading role, but also the retailers, landlords, consumers, the highway authority and many others.
In order to be brought together by a town centre manager, that requires funding. Much mention has been made this evening of how a mechanism might be adopted for that. I favour the top slicing of the universal business rate to fund that mechanism, because that would be fair and would relate to the size, viability and turnover of the business in a particular town. It would also stop those who do not currently wish to take part in such schemes—so-called backsliders.
I am not in favour of the scheme advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) of capital allowances, as they bring about the wrong results. People do things that they would not otherwise do, purely for tax reasons.
As a number of hon. Members have said, town centre viability and vitality can be brought about in a number of ways, not least of which is the willingness of businesses to provide service. I recently went to the United States, where I found that every shopkeeper wants to provide a service. It is no trouble for them to lift heavy goods out into somebody's car. Nothing is too much trouble. In restaurants, one is offered more water and so on before one has to ask for it.
I often find that kind of service lacking in the smaller shops in our smaller towns. Sometimes when I enter a shop, I get the impression that the shopkeeper does not want me to be there; he or she does not want to serve me. We must overcome that sort of attitude. Shops which are part of large retail chains have solved that problem by running employee management schemes to train their employees to look after the customers. It is the small shops which must adopt a better attitude to customer service.
Town centre managers could improve town centres in other ways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, it is largely a matter of self-help. Managers could improve the safety of shopping centres by introducing closed-circuit television. They could provide better facilities, so that disabled people can shop more easily. They could examine whether the local public transport network is near the shops and enables disabled people to reach them easily. Perhaps there is a granny tripper just inside the entrance to a shop which shoppers have to lift prams or buggies over in order to access that shop. Managers can do many simple things to make the shops in their town centres more attractive to the consumer.
Unless we seize every available opportunity to improve our town centres, people will take the easy option: they will travel by car to out-of-town shopping centres. I do not think that planning guidance note 13, which tries to restrict the number of car parking spaces artificially, is the right way of ensuring the vitality and viability of our town

centres. Easy and convenient car parking spaces should be provided near town centres, so that people will choose to shop in the town centre rather than go out of town.
It is totally wrong for central Government to give prescriptive guidance to local authorities about charging for car parking. Individual local authorities or towns should be allowed to charge nothing for car parking if they believe that that will help them to compete with out-of-town shopping centres.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's response to the Committee's inquiry. I hope that local authorities will look carefully at all applications for out-of-town shopping centres. There is no doubt that out-of-town shopping developments have put stress and strain on our existing city and regional town centres.
I think that the sequential test that was mentioned by many hon. Members this evening is the right way to go. If there is an available site within the town centre, it should be the first priority. If no such site exists, developers could then look at edge-of-town sites. Edge-of-town sites are those to which people can easily walk from the town centre; there should be no confusion between edge-of-town and out-of-town sites. The least preferred option would be an out-of-town development which could be reached by car.
I believe that developers are beginning to target smaller market towns for significant out-of-town development applications. The local authority in Stow-on-the-Wold is considering an application for a development which will cover 10.25 acres, which is more than one quarter the size of that market town.
Stow-on-the-Wold is a beautiful town in the middle of the Cotswolds; it is a real gem. There is no question but that, if that development goes ahead, it will radically change the entire character of that town forever. I do not think that we want to denude little market towns of their traditional retailers. The butchers, the bakers and the other little shops provide excellent services in small towns. Even if they do the things I have recommended, they would be put under great pressure by a massive supermarket development.
Let us have no illusions; the proposed development is an out-of-town development. The average person could not walk to the development site. Therefore, it should be considered according to out-of-town criteria.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is currently not in his place, mentioned the problem of regional planning. If he looks carefully at the Government's response to the inquiry, he will see that the Government have made it clear that the existing regional planning guidance notes can deal with difficult situations. However, we must encourage local authorities to work together. I hope that they will consult with each other about large out-of-town development proposals. As one drives around the country, one often sees a controversial or bad development which is situated on the edge of a local planning authority's area.
We must also encourage the formulation of better statistics and better methodology for framing impact studies for edge-of-town and out-of-town developments. That methodology is still being developed, and even the top professionals in the field do not agree on how impact studies should be carried out.


I was dismayed when my local authority, Cotswold district council, decided to challenge a major edge-of-town development. Its case was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, but costs were awarded against the council because its impact study was criticised. As the study had been conducted by a major firm in the City, that ruling seems a little harsh. Decisions such as that will weaken the council's resolve to challenge other unsuitable out-of-town developments—of which another three have been proposed as a result of the Inspectorate's decision.
I hope that the Minister will consider the question of awarding costs against local authorities very carefully. They are the local democratically elected bodies, and if they choose to fight particular planning applications—provided they do not have a wholly spurious case—I think that there is an argument for not readily awarding costs against them.
The Committee inquiry dealt at some length with the problem of planning gain. The fundamental principle that no development should be granted planning permission merely because of planning gain is entirely correct. The Government supported that principle in their response to our inquiry.
We must be very careful about planning gain. There is nothing wrong with it and, provided it is associated with a good development, I can see no reason why local authorities should not be entitled to ask for a reasonable level of gain in order to support the local community which will maintain that development. However, I think that we must ensure that the planning gain relates directly to the development and not to some other spurious cause that the local authority may inflict on the developer.
I urge my hon. Friend to look at section 106 agreements. A large development in my constituency is currently under appeal with the planning inspectorate. I do not intend to argue whether the decision should be in favour of or against that development for a retail park on the edge of the market town of Tewkesbury. I was keen to ensure that the local authority applied the section 106 agreement meticulously. That agreement refers to the range of merchandise which can be sold from a factory outlet.
In the past, huge supermarkets or regional shopping centres have been allowed to sell a range of goods—perhaps they are food-related—but then the developers have applied a year or two later to open a chemist's shop or a post office. That immediately jeopardises the future of the local chemists and post offices. Supermarkets often apply at a later date to build petrol stations in their complexes. One can see that the development in Stow-on-the-Wold intends to do that. Its plans include an access road, and I bet that, in two or three years, the developers will apply to instal a petrol retail unit.
The section 106 agreements must be made to work. They must be rigorously upheld in the planning system, so that we do not get the so-called planning creep, whereby an application is made for one type of development, but gradually, over a period, it ends up as a totally different development.
I have highlighted a few points in the Select Committee report. It is an extremely important report. Every town and every city will be different, so it is impossible—as the Government made clear in their response to our inquiry—to be totally prescriptive in the planning system.
I am delighted that, at long last, the necessity to ensure the vitality and viability of our town centres has been recognised. We do not want to end up with ghost towns and cities. We want living towns, with people living above shops. We want recreational facilities, and, above all, we want people shopping and using those towns so that they are alive and dynamic, and will progress into the 21st century and expand, as they have throughout history.

9 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a valuable and worthwhile report which is a credit to the Committee, its previous Chairman, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), the current Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, under whose deputy chairmanship I served on the Committee many years ago, and its current Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I trust that the Government will take early and significant action on its recommendations.
I am bound to say, however, that I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish on two of his particular concerns. They are first and foremost his attack—it was no less than that—on activity shoppers, as he described them. I take issue with his denigration of activity shoppers, because I must confess to being one, as are my family. He presented the horror scenario of the nightmare family driving up the motorway to the Lake District getting some fresh air and scenery and then descending on the local high street and buying things for which they might not have much use, ultimately. Although that might be a horror for my hon. Friend, to me it is nothing short of a domestic idyll. It is an ideal way to spend a day with one's family, and I do not think it ought to be knocked.
Similarly, I take issue with him on his attack on fast food joints on the high street. Many of us who, seeking refuge for ourselves from our children, succumb to their blandishments and take them into such places with a great deal of mutual benefit to all concerned. The two in Wembley high street rely on the likes of me and others precisely for their living, and the shops around them similarly benefit. Wembley high street has suffered particularly in recent years from the recession and the absence of adequate planning controls, and there are times when the presence of such fast-food places is a major magnet to the high street, so I take issue with my hon. Friend on those points.
The Committee and its report in its entirety are a valuable contribution to the debate. It is a timely contribution too, because in all too many of our constituencies we are living with the consequence of a market that has not been regulated effectively over the past 15 years. It is good to hear so many Conservative Members converted to the benefits of regulating and seeking to control and channel the dynamism of the market. I notice that a number of Conservative Members are now seeking to go back on their belated conversions; nevertheless that is how it will appear to those innocent readers of the record of this debate or any who happen to drop in on the proceedings tonight.
Time and again, Conservative Members recognise the force of the argument that market forces alone, in determining where retail parks and megastores spring up, are not an adequate way of preserving the public good.


We need to make sure that our planning regulations and directives ensure social and economic responsibility. Corporate responsibility also has a role to play.
It is important also that there have been contributions to the debate from a number of hon. Members who do not represent rural constituencies. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in particular, who sits on the Committee, referred to "my market towns". A number of us who represent urban constituencies feel somewhat excluded from this rather proprietorial attitude towards one's constituency and its geographical territory.
I do not have any market towns in my constituency. I do, however, have a number of urban and suburban shopping arcades. Those urban and suburban arcades are equally important to those of us who have such places in our constituencies. They have been damaged of late, as have our high streets, by the profusion of superstores, megastores and retail parks.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I rise merely to invite the hon. Gentleman to any of my market towns. I care passionately for them and the hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to visit them because he will give the tourism effort an enormous boost.

Mr. Boateng: I shall take the hon. Gentleman up on that in the course of my activity shopping. The Boateng family will descend in great numbers on one of your market towns, and we look forward to you being there to greet us.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing me.

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is similarly very welcome to one of my suburban arcades. We will be there to meet him, and when he visits such a suburban arcade, particularly the ones in Wembley park off Forty avenue, Preston road and East lane, he will find that there is considerable concern about the proliferation of megastores and retail parks on the North Circular road.
It is almost surreal that in successive weeks, major retail developments are opening along the North Circular road in vast numbers, no doubt at great expense to the shareholders concerned and no doubt also in the expectation of great profit, but it is difficult to see how there will be enough shoppers to fill those megastores. They are already draining from the surrounding areas of north-west London the lifeblood of the high streets, in Wembley and Harlesden in particular, and indeed, in the suburban shopping arcades that I have mentioned.
Hon. Members have drawn attention to the proliferation of charity shops. There are also boarded-up shops, and shops that are virtually derelict. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) spoke of the importance of the high street as an historic centre for community life, and he is right; but in many areas the post office and the gas and electricity showrooms were once part of that history, and now they have gone. Their departure from the high street—as a result of policies supported by Conservative Members—has made a major contribution to the crisis that now affects many of our high streets, and the death of some of them.
I speak with some passion about local post offices. My area is by no means unique in this respect, but the Wembley post office on the high road has been closed. It has been transferred to one of the few remaining retail outlets on the high road, and another has sprung up in one of the megastores down the road. The Government should respond to such developments, and to others with which the report deals.
The single regeneration budget has been mentioned. I hope that it will be able to give much-needed assistance to the schemes and projects of local authorities that seek to revive our high streets. Such areas need a magnet for investment, and an infrastructure that is currently lacking in all too many instances.
I do not for a moment denigrate or ignore the contribution to regeneration made by city challenge in Harlesden, for example. As a public-private partnership works to build up the area, however, just down the road—off Scrubs lane—there are plans for another giant superstore to open. In the past two weeks, another superstore has opened at Brent Cross, within weeks of the opening of yet another 250 yards down the North Circular road.
We now have a mega-Safeway and a mega-Tesco, in addition to the mega-Safeways and mega-Tescos that have opened in Queensbury and further along the North Circular towards Edmonton, the mega-Tesco at Brent park and the mega-Sainsbury in Alperton. Superstore after superstore is being constructed. At some stage, a halt must be called, and we look to Government to do just that.
It is not enough to urge common sense on the Government—the kind of common sense that is contained in the report—in the expectation of possible action at some future date. We need an assurance now that action will be taken at an early stage, and we hope to receive it from the Minister.
The Chalk Hill estate in Brent provides a typical example of the time bomb contained in permissions already granted and in the pipeline. It is proposed to tear down some homes on the estate and to substitute a new megastore, in addition to those in the surrounding area that I have already mentioned. The planning game for the council is the financing of the estate's refurbishment and redevelopment. I understand the attraction of that to a council that is strapped for cash, but the result will be a further undermining of local shopping facilities. For those who live on the estate, the development will also raise the spectre of being decanted they know not where.
Taking away homes to build another megastore defies common sense. I therefore urge the Minister to look into the Chalk Hill development and to do all in his power to prevent it. By doing so, he will halt the decline of the local economy in that part of Wembley Park. By calling the attention of the council to the crisis of concern among the residents and shopkeepers of the area, the Minister will at least show such people that the Government are prepared to listen. I urge him to do just that. I also urge him to deny the council the permissions that it requires to develop the Book Centre site in Wembley. Failure to do that will only assist the council in its intention to redevelop the Chalk Hill estate.
This has been an important debate; we await the Minister's reply with interest—and trust that it will be a constructive and speedy one.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I shall try to speak at high speed and in abbreviated form.
This is an interesting subject and report. Entitled "Shopping Centres and their Future", the report covers shopping policy, transport policy and—most important of all—urban policy. Because it combines those three policy areas it is a highly worthwhile investigation of the responsibilities covered by the Department of the Environment. It is thus important that the Secretary of State deal with the recommendations in the report.
It is clear from the report's comments on shopping policy that shopping is not a homogeneous activity. It all depends on who is shopping, when, and what for. There is bulk food shopping, there is buying one's Sunday paper in the local shop, there is DIY shopping and there is fresh food shopping—they are all different.
The importance that we attach to the traditional markets in our small towns and urban areas—not to mention larger centres such as Sheffield—is not to be denied. Markets sell fresh produce at reasonable prices, and they bring a certain vibrancy to the shopping experience. Recently, Chapeltown in my constituency urged the planning authority to allow the opening of a Saturday market, which is proving extremely popular.
In the other meaning of the word, the "market", however, does not necessarily offer the customer the widest possible choice. Increasingly the public are shopping in these huge out-of-town centres. In Sheffield, we know very well how fast this change is taking place. The development of the Meadowhall centre has transformed shopping habits in the area. We cannot assume that it offers more choice to the shopper. It does not. The shops there are all similar, selling similar goods. It is difficult to find specialist items in such places, or to obtain clothing in extremes of sizes. Shops often presume that one is between size 12 and 16, and if one is at either end of that scale, one has to go elsewhere for clothing. The Committee was strongly of the view that, in contrast, town and city centres offer flexibility, variety and—because they embrace cultural and leisure activities—interest.
The pressure to shift from car usage to public transport or non-car journeys will increase, driven by environmental policies, problems of air quality, congestion and the sheer unpleasantness of sitting in a car in a traffic jam on a hot sunny day. The public transport aspect of the Meadowhall development was well planned on an integrated basis, with British Rail opening a new station and the light rail Supertram being routed through Meadowhall. There is also car parking. Meadowhall may not like this, but car parks there are increasingly used for park-and-ride commuters who work in the city centre.
Finally, the Government must acknowledge serious flaws in some of their urban policies. I agree with encouraging more people to live in town centres, but the Government must recognise the role of local authorities in developing the sort of partnership proposals outlined in the report. Town centre management schemes need people, resources and planners. Many planning authorities have an acute shortage of the key people who are the driving force in getting private and public sector partnership schemes up and running.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) rightly pointed out the problem of relying on traditional urban development schemes and the single regeneration budget. The element of competition within them is extremely damaging when a town centre already faces an out-of-town threat. If the town or city centre proposal fails, that can add to declining morale among the people involved. I will be listening carefully to what the Minister has to say about these key urban policy issues.

Mr. Keith Vaz: This has been a good debate—almost a love-in, with hon. Members on both sides of the House pouring praise on the Select Committee's report and expressing their good wishes strongly in favour of the town and city centre.
I congratulate all the hon. Members involved in that excellent report on producing so much food for thought and debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) should be congratulated on his chairmanship of the Committee and on the way in which he introduced the debate. We heard excellent speeches from hon. Members who represent rural and urban areas.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) reminded us about the heritage of our towns and cities and the need to preserve the heritage of the countryside. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), who is a member of the Co-op movement, spoke about the importance of the retail sector. I congratulate him on his work in the all-party retail group.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said that people want town centres to survive and that market forces need to be channelled through the planning process. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), who is not in his place, told us about his bicycling habits. I am sure that he is not the first Member to admit to being schizophrenic. He likes town centres, but prefers to shop in out-of-town developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) told us that his views had not changed, despite being an adviser to Friends of the Earth in previous employment. He said that the city centre needs to be supported and developed. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) told us about proposals to ruin his market town of Stow-on-the-Wold. We wish him success in opposing the application. I am sure that, if he has a word with his hon. Friend the Minister, the application could be called in at some future date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is almost my Member of Parliament because I live in the constituency of Brent, East and sometimes have to shop in the arcades that he invited the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury to visit, took us on a tour of the north circular road and made a strong plea for homes rather than superstores.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who is a member of the Select Committee, reminded us of the importance of town and city centres. She spoke about developments in Sheffield and said that the only in which we would get strong city and town centres was by the Government being prepared to put in a great deal of investment to support excellent councils such as the one in Sheffield.


In the House on 26 May 1994, the Minister's predecessor, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), set out the Government's policy, which has changed rapidly over the past 15 years. It was that town centres were to be the preferred location for most of our new shopping developments. He said that previous policies had had a dramatic effect on retail policy and especially on the development of town and city centres.
Every hon. Member who regularly attends Environment Question Time, which we had earlier today, is aware of hon. Members' concern about the changing nature of Government policy and about the fact that there is no clear guidance about precisely what should happen. The Government's present policy is as clear as mud. In the context of planning issues, the Secretary of State has turned the U-turn into an art. He has pirouetted 360 deg from his initial stance that out-of-town developments were the way forward for retail planning. To echo the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, I hope that in his reply the Minister will apologise on behalf of himself and the Government for the way in which they have developed planning policy until recently.
Removing local authority power in these matters and granting a great number of applications on appeal has meant that developments have decimated our town and city centres. The Secretary of State and Ministers realised that it was time to reverse his discredited policy because that was the only way to limit the damage to that which has already occurred. The Opposition and local authority associations told the Government for some time that their policy was wrong.
The Secretary of State has said that he is now committed to
using my planning powers to support local efforts to safeguard the vitality of towns and the economic viability of their retail centres in particular.
I welcome the assurances that local authorities are to be given the power to handle, without interference, applications for out-of-town developments, but good words are not enough. What the House and every hon. Member wishes to see is action by the Department of the Environment to ensure that, once passed, the guidance is carried into action.
The Independent of Monday 20 February reported that despite initiating a policy of there being no more superstore developments in out-of-town areas, the Department of the Environment plans to develop an edge-of-town superstore with parking for more than 300 cars in Cambridgeshire. It is no wonder that that has outraged not only local environmentalists but local residents. Campaigners pointed out that the move goes completely against the spirit of a new, greener Government planning policy.
Cambridge city council felt very strongly about the proposal and decided to turn down the application. The DOE's response to the superstore development was that it would provide more than 100 bicycle parking places—no doubt suitable for the hon. Member for Edmonton, when bicycling up the A10 to do his shopping.
How can we take seriously Ministers who, on the one hand, say that, through PPG 6 and PPG 13, they support town and city centres and want to curtail the development

of superstores, while on the other are prepared to allow such developments to go ahead? A commitment to revise the PPGs was first made in 1990. That was designed to ensure that the guidance that the Government provided reflected the Government's environmental agenda. In the case of PPG 6 that meant a commitment to reduce the need to go shopping by car. The objectives of PPG 6 were
to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres which serve the whole community and which provide a focus for retail development, where proximity of competing businesses facilities competition from which the consumers can benefit.
We welcome the announcement, made in response to the Select Committee's recommendations, that the Government will review PPG 6 and will also look at PPG 13. At the moment, it is only the lawyers who seem to be making most of the money out of the lack of clarity of PPG 6. I recently had lunch with the chairman of a very big retail company—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not know whether I should declare that in the Register of Members' Interests. It was not a very big lunch, but the company is a very big contributor to the Conservative party. It is as fed up with the Government as are some Conservative Members because of the Government's failure to be clear about planning policy.

Mr. Thomason: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that no out-of-town development took place and there were no substantial shopping centres built in the period from 1974 to 1979?

Mr. Vaz: I shall come in a moment to a report that I published only last year, but it is clear from all the statistics that the major growth in out-of-town shopping centres has occurred under this Government—promoted and supported by the Government until the U-turn that the Secretary of State initiated only two years ago.
The Select Committee laid down two very firm criteria, which the Labour party believes are fundamental cornerstones of any policy. First, retail proposals should not be given permission for developments outside a town or city if there is a suitable site available close to the centre. Secondly, the data from retail impact studies will be required to assess any threat of harmful damage to such town and city centres that the projects may cause. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) that the onus should be placed firmly on the developers to show that the impact of their policies will not in any way have an effect on town and city centres.
In congratulating the Select Committee on its report, I have to say that I believe that it was very important that it made so many extensive visits to so many different parts of the country. In particular, I was delighted that the Committee visited Leicestershire to study the effects of the Fosse park and Shires developments. I know that the Minister will visit Leicester shortly. I hope that he will take the opportunity of looking at the city council's excellent work in the Shires centre. It is trying to promote the viability and vitality of the city centre.
I accept that it is no use having an intellectual discussion about out-of-town developments and about the fact that we are against them unless we are prepared to initiate policies that will mean that developers will invest in city and town centres. I was attracted to some of the proposals of hon. Members, especially that of the hon. Member for Edmonton, who talked about the need for the Treasury to consider capital allowances. The local authority has a duty to work in partnership with the


private sector to ensure that all the possibilities are explored. One should consider what may be provided outside a town or city centre only when those possibilities have been exhausted.
Last year, I published a report on the impact of out-of-town developments. I decided to undertake a survey to find out what was happening at local level. The results showed that 1,473 out-of-town developments were built between 1989 and 1994. On 307 occasions, the Department of the Environment overturned decisions even where local authorities felt that applications did not warrant planning permissions.
The results were taken from a total of 322 responses from district, metropolitan and county councils, which represented 73 per cent. of the councils that were sent questionnaires. The effect of Government planning guidance and Department of the Environment policy meant that a retailer's application for an out-of-town development had a 62.7 per cent. chance of being passed. The general feeling among town planners is that, although PPG 6 and PPG 13 are tighter than previous guidance, they are clearly not strong enough.
A report by Essex county council states:
the government's test of vitality and viability of existing town centres is ill defined and the move to out of town developments… has inevitably reduced the choice and range of shopping in town centres".
A metropolitan district council reported:
The town centre needs to regain its role as the focus of community activity in shopping, employment, cultural, educational, housing, leisure, and commercial terms".
The Labour party is firmly against out-of-town developments. They undermine our local businesses and the credibility of our high streets. There are too many empty shops, factories and residential developments in city areas. Labour Members and I applaud councils such as Leeds, which have adopted 24-hour cities, and firms such as Asda, which are prepared to develop the concept of 24-hour shopping in city centres. One of the great issues of our age is that the public supports the high street, but increasingly shops out of town.
In preparation for this debate, I went shopping in Sainsbury's in Leicester on Sunday. I have to report that I really enjoyed the experience. I was impressed by the way in which retail developers have made shopping into a family event. My family is very young—my son is only 11 days old—so it is not as active as the family of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, but I too hope to visit Cirencester and Tewkesbury one day. Innovative schemes have been developed—for example, Sainsbury's new proposal, in association with Cox and Kings, a well-respected travel agency, to establish travel agencies inside its supermarkets. Those are new, consumer-friendly ideas. Consumers—the shoppers—welcome those developments.
I urge the private sector and big developers to develop those excellent ideas in the town centre context. One does not have to create great monstrosities outside town centres. One can develop centres in the context of urban life.
If our aim is to regenerate our town centres through our retail planning policies, we have to support local authorities by giving them a clear vision and adequate resources which enable them to adopt a clear strategy. A transport policy involving investment in public transport can deal with the inconsistencies of deregulated buses and

massive road-building schemes. By giving people a viable alternative to car journeys, reliance on car travel can diminish the associated problems of congestion and air pollution.
The Labour party believes that it is essential to protect our towns and cities so that they can flourish and provide an effective basis for community life.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The debate has not quite been a love-in but certainly an occasion for considerable agreement or, perhaps, variations on a theme. There was a little bit of Christmas tree utilisation—my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) covered the debate with a few coloured lights and attacks on the Treasury, among other things. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, there was a huge measure of agreement.
I was, surprisingly, able to agree with some of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said. I understand what she said as I have experienced great difficulty in finding clothes, but especially shoes, in the right size. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) might be interested to know that my youngest son wholly understands the importance of activity shopping, filling his pockets with as much pocket money as he can bludge off his parents and buying fast food. His third word was "McDonald's". Perhaps we should warn the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) to watch his son—his third word might be "Sainsbury".
I was intrigued to hear the reasoning advanced by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He blamed the Government but then immediately turned on the then Liberal council and said that it was to blame, too. Of course, the temptation was to agree with him. We have come to expect the type of speech made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). It appears that the Liberal party invented everything from bicycles to viable solutions, even if someone else thought of them first.
Like other hon. Members, I am grateful to have this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Environment Select Committee and congratulate it on its excellent report. I say that not only because it provided strong support for our policy but because, in its spirit of inquiry, it accurately pinpointed matters where the policy needs clarification and where further development is needed.
The Committee, initially under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), then under that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who launched the report, and subsequently under that of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who initiated this debate, has produced a clear and thorough report. It presented the Department with a considerable challenge. As has been said, we agreed with most of the Committee's recommendations. By responding positively, we have set ourselves a major work programme. As people will recognise, we shall not be able to do it all at once. Some things will be done as a matter of priority; others will follow on a longer time scale.
I recognise the concern for us to move quickly in forming a response to PPG 6 and its variations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at Question


Time today, we intend to have the consultation draft issued by the summer. In the meantime, PPG 6 as it stands, plus ministerial speeches and the inferences in them, will apply, which is why it is appropriate to try to get through some of the points raised this evening as quickly as I can.
We accept that this is not a one-off opportunity to tune our policy. We must monitor the policy continuously to ensure that it is effective in meeting our objectives, which are to maintain and enhance existing town centres and ensure that everyone has access to a wide variety of shopping. As has been said, the benefits of competition should be accessible to all, not only those who have access to a car.
The Select Committee provided a major opportunity to scrutinise not only Government policy but the most recent developments in this fast-moving industry. It provided us with a lot of useful material and proposals for action, which we very much appreciate. My Department, on behalf of the Government, has now responded to those proposals fully and positively and we are proposing to revise our PPG note on town centres and retail developments, to commission good practice guidance, to promote town centre management, to commission research and to improve the quality of statistics on the retail industry that may be used for retail planning.
In our response, we propose to revise PPG 6. I should make it clear that we are proposing particularly to clarify a number of issues in response to the Committee's comments. We do not propose a dramatic and radical extension of our policy because, after all, the Committee broadly endorses the policy as it is.
The Committee highlighted the need to clarify our approach to the location of retail development. We propose to do that in two ways. First, the PPG will emphasise the need for a plan-led approach. That means that we shall expect local planning authorities to set out clearly in their development plans the strategy for retail development. That will need to be based on a good understanding of existing centres—city, town, district, local centres and even the particular historic preserves, I suppose we could call them, of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). We shall also need to reflect on the need and demand for further retail development in those areas. Local plans will need to be clear and unambiguous about where development is expected to take place and which sites are earmarked for retail development.
Secondly, the revised PPG will clarify our approach to the location of retail developments. PPG 6 and subsequent speeches by Ministers describe a "sequential approach". That advised planning authorities and developers to look first for town centre sites. When suitable sites are not available, those concerns should look for edge-of-centre sites. That means that the shoppers coming by car are able to walk into the town centre for shopping and other business and it also enables those coming to the centre by bus or on foot to walk out to the new shops. The PPG suggests that the limits be defined in terms of "reasonable walking distance".
We may need to be more specific. There is a limit to how far people can walk with several heavy bags of shopping and how far car drivers will walk. That has been

explained in no uncertain and clear terms by my wife, who utilises the sort of Sainsbury's store enjoyed by the hon. Member for Leicester, East at the weekend.

Mr. Timms: I welcome what the Minister is saying about the changing policy framework, but what advice would he give to a local authority that is having to look again at earlier planning permission? My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said in opening the debate that many planning applications have been given permission, but have not yet been implemented. When the time limit expires, local authorities have to look again at the permission granted, or sometimes the applicant wants to vary the conditions that were imposed first time round. Would he advise local authorities to look at the application afresh in the light of the new policy, or should they feel constrained by the policy when the initial application was made? Indeed, what guidelines will Ministers follow in reconsidering old applications?

Sir Paul Beresford: At this stage, my advice would be that the new conditions would apply if the application fell out of time.
There will be some cases where there could be justification for not locating in the town centre, such as large showrooms or where people want to take goods away that they could not reasonably carry from the centre of the town. In those cases, we shall still expect retail developments to take into account the current tests: the impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres, accessibility by a choice of means of transport and the impact of overall car use.
Put simply, we shall still expect local planning authorities and developers to look for locations that will also be easily accessible to those without a car. Our advice is to look at the town centre first and then at the edge-of-centre sites, before considering looking out of the centre: a sequential approach to look for suitable sites. It should apply equally to food shopping and comparison shopping.
To revitalise our town centres, we need to encourage diversification, which hon. Members have touched on. Town centres are not only about shopping. We want to encourage a wide variety of activities in town centres, even if it is the eating of fast food by the son of the hon. Member for Brent, South.
We want to encourage offices, entertainment, culture, higher education, hospitals and, most of all, housing. We must bring our town centres back to life. To do that, we want to promote a greater mixture of uses, not only side by side, but on top of one another. We want to remove some the barriers to achieving that and will be working closely with the financial institutions and developers to that end.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister confirm the report in The Independent of 20 February that the Department of the Environment is proposing to develop a superstore outside Cambridge?

Sir Paul Beresford: At this stage, we are considering the proposal with considerable care. It might be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would await developments.
One of the main areas on which the Environment Select Committee focused was the perceived inconsistency between two different guidance notes—PPG 6 and


PPG 13. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already indicated that the Government are concerned about how town centre car parking is currently used. Although circumstances may vary from place to place, it may be more a question of making better use of existing parking spaces—through management and pricing policies—than providing a lot more car parking.
The key issue is to make short-term public parking available to town centre users, rather than insisting that generous parking be provided in new developments. That is part of the pressure that drives business out of town. The revised PPG will remove any misunderstanding.
The key to creating vital and viable town centres and meeting the challenge of existing out-of-town developments is to take positive action to improve them. Existing guidance already promotes town centres. Our report, "Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge", which was published last May, makes the case for assessing the health of a centre, establishing a partnership body and drawing up a strategy and action plan for the centre. It recognises that each centre will need to establish the way ahead for its own future.
To take that initiative further, we agree with the Select Committee that more guidance to all those concerned is needed. We will work closely with the Association of Town Centre Management to produce good practice guidance and to promote training in that field.
Town centre improvements and town centre management will involve extra money. We are actively considering how that will be funded. Much of it will come from targeting existing resources more effectively, such as through the Department of Transport package approach, which encourages local authorities to adopt a genuinely strategic approach to dealing with their transport problems, particularly in urban areas. Likewise, local resources can also be targeted more effectively, such as on street cleaning, lighting and measures to build out crime, which includes closed circuit television.
We recognise, however, that additional funds will be needed. My Department has already targeted town centres through various urban programmes, the latest being city challenge, to which reference was made, and the single regeneration budget. Some 40 schemes within that budget, accounting for 20 per cent. of the funding, are partnerships aimed at town centre revitalisation.
Funding will also need to come from other partners. Up to now, that has been in the form of generous support from a few major retailers, such as Boots and Marks and Spencer. In future, we will need ways of giving everyone an opportunity to contribute and of encouraging them to do so. We are still looking at ways of achieving that.
To help developers and retailers invest in town centres, we need to help them in other ways. In particular, we are looking for ways to assist them in site assembly. The plan-led approach, which I referred to earlier, will both help that and be helped by it. The plan, with the participation of retailers, should identify appropriate sites for further retail development. Once in the plan, that will assist land assembly, especially if there is a need to acquire sites compulsorily.
We need to provide a more favourable climate to encourage private investment in town centres. We will be looking at ways to involve the private sector in town

centre revitalisation, both through direct investment in property and through investment in the town centre infrastructure.
A key issue raised by the Select Committee, which my Department recognises, is the need for more research on retail issues to assist the planning system. In particular, there is general agreement on the need for better information about the impact of out-of-centre and out-of-town developments. Research is being commissioned at the moment on the impact of out-of-town shopping, and we are hoping to sponsor research on attitudes to, and preferences for, the various different types of shopping.
The first concern is the impact of out-of-centre superstores, especially on market towns, which rely heavily on a town centre supermarket as the anchor store. The second is the impact, including the cumulative effects, of some of the newer out-of-centre retail formats—retail warehouse parks, warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres and so forth—on existing centres.
If the issue of impact and its relative significance is better understood, the assessment of out-of-centre developments should be made much easier. One of the main concerns, however, is that existing information about retailing is not as good as it could be and we are committed to improving the availability of existing data, including information on floor space and employment. Provided that a way to obtain information on retail turnover can be found, that does not create an undue burden on business, and it will ensure confidentiality and guarantee co-operation by retailers. The Government will consider favourably proposals for securing data on retail turnover. It is hoped that all that data can eventually be available for defined town centres, at regular intervals, which will help towns and cities monitor the health of their centres.
In conclusion, may I again congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment on his excellent report? I hope he considers that we have responded fully and constructively. As he will no doubt point out, our next task is to deliver. The Select Committee will be calling us to account in a year's time and I hope that we will be able to show considerable progress. On this subject, it would appear that we are all agreed on the correct way forward. We all seem to have the same objective: to make the planning system work in delivering what we all want—vital and viable town centres that are attractive, accessible and desirable to everyone to shop in.

Mr. Bennett: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank the Minister for his response and take him up on the point that he made in conclusion?
The tradition established by my predecessor, who is now the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, was that the Select Committee had a duty to return to its reports to find out what progress had been made. The Minister seemed to think that we might let him off for 12 months, but I think that some members of the Committee would probably rather come back to it a little sooner. May I suggest that we might look into it in October?
We are concerned that we get the new planning guidance as quickly as possible, and I think that the Government recognise that. We are also concerned about


the planning applications that are in the pipeline but where construction has not taken place. We want to hear quickly how the Government will finance city centre management and it would be wrong for us to wait another 12 months for a progress report. I suspect, therefore, that the Select Committee will want to come back to the matter much sooner. I hope that the Government will have taken action by then.

Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

Sitting suspended.

10 pm

On resuming:

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions which he was directed by paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) to put at that hour.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1994–95

Class IV, Vote 1

Question,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1995 for expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry on support for business, research and development; consumer protection and the regulation of trade, energy related programmes, including research and development, and residual privatisation expenses; departmental administration, central and miscellaneous services; security of oil and gas supplies; the operational costs of departmental executive agencies and associated research laboratory privatisation expenses; the provision of land and building; loans, grants and other payments.

put and agreed to.

Class VII, Vote 7

Question,

That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1995 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment and its agencies on administration, including research, royal commissioners, committees, etc., and by the Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency on appeals, and by the Building Research Establishment Executive Agency on buildings research and surveys.

put and agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates etc.) to put at that hour.

ESTIMATES, 1995–96 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,

That during the year ending on 31st March 1996 a number not exceeding 53,500 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service.

ESTIMATES, 1995–96 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,

That during the year ending on 3Ist March 1996 a number not exceeding 142,990 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 131,000 for the Individual Reserves, and a number not exceeding 63,950 for the Territorial Army.

ESTIMATES, 1995–96 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,

That during the year ending on 3Ist March 1996 a number not exceeding 73,860 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 18,150 for the Royal Air Force Reserve, and a number not exceeding 2,050 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1993–94

Resolved,

That a sum not exceeding £167,222,897.35 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 180.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1994–95

Resolved,

That a further sum not exceeding £1,171,473,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1995, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 181 and 250.

Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Sir George Young, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. Anthony Nelson do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

Sir George Young accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1995 and 1996; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

MEDICINES (FEES)

That the draft Medicines (Fixing of Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Human Use) Amendment Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

DSS Compensation Recovery Unit

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this. House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the subject of the compensation recovery unit of the Department of Social Security. This little-publicised body is causing misery and anger up and down the land, and it is high time the Government were forced to justify the activities being carried out in its name. This year, the CRU will claw back around £100 million from victims of accident, illness or disease, who may have taken several years to obtain an award from insurers or from the courts.
In this financial year, about 40,000 people will have had to pay benefit back to the CRU, and about 700 people will have had to pay back more than £25,000 each. The biggest single clawback that I have been able to find this year is from a person with a spinal injury, who has had to pay more than £84,000 to the DSS. For someone to have received that amount of benefit during the past few years, he or she must be a paraplegic or almost totally dependent on others. The 10 biggest clawbacks of this year are all for over £65,000 of benefit being paid back to the CRU.
My association with this issue arises from contact with Clydeside Action on Asbestos. Jointly, we lobbied Parliament in November last year, as a result of which a splendid article in the Daily Mirror led to large numbers of victims of the DSS contacting me. With subsequent publicity, I have now received more than 140 letters on that subject.
I shall list at random some of those cases. A man from Middlesbrough fell off scaffolding and received a spinal injury. He can never do manual work again, and has been off work for three and a half years. He was offered £25,000, and has had to pay back £21,000 to the CRU, leaving the rest for legal and medical bills.
A 50-year-old woman from Manchester had an accident in 1990 which left her with a permanent disability and in constant pain. He employers have now offered her £2,500, which is all she will be allowed to keep under the rules of the CRU. She says:
What on earth have I made all those contributions for? This law is obscene. The honest hardworking folk are being kicked in the teeth.
A man from Durham who spent 33 years down the pits had an accident in 1989 which left him permanently disabled. After three years, British Coal offered him £2,500—again, all that he will be allowed to keep. A man from Lancashire had an accident in 1991 and lost his job. The case is still pending, although the insurers admitted liability on the first day. He owes the CRU £25,000.
A Staffordshire man is already losing £30,000 to the CRU. He notes, as I do, the insult of the amounts being offered for industrial injuries. He contrasts his case with that of a major in the Army who was sacked from her job for being pregnant, and was awarded £400,000 in compensation. Another example is a Belfast bus driver who, after 26 years of work, lost his leg in a terrorist bomb explosion. He was offered £10,000 in compensation, which he fears he may lose to the CRU.
What emerges from those 140 cases is a burning sense of anger from people whose lives have been turned upside down. Many of them have lost their jobs and incomes, and have endured pain and inconvenience with which they must live.
The Minister smirks. I do not find those cases at all funny.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): If the hon. Gentleman is saying that some of those people are paraplegics, is he not aware that, under the old system, future payments of attendance and mobility allowance continuing for years in the future would have to be taken into account? If he wants to make a comparison, he should make an accurate one.

Mr. Worthington: I shall come to that matter in a moment.
Who do those people now regard as public enemy number one? It is the Government, who should have been their safeguard. They no longer regard those who caused the illness or accident as their enemy. In all cases, they feel betrayed by the Government.
They thought that they were part of a national insurance scheme into which they had contributed year after year to cover themselves against an eventual calamity. They never thought that the scheme was a fraud, in that the money would have to be repaid. What was the point of their national insurance contributions? Those who were not receiving contributory benefits did not have to pay them back.
I am grateful to the Social Security Select Committee for agreeing to my suggestion that it should investigate the work of the DSS. The Minister appeared before the Committee today, and I was pleased to see that he found it impossible to justify the CRU's work. It was disturbing to see that he had no knowledge of the consequences of its work.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is in his place, for initiating his Workplace Injury Victims Bill, which draws attention to this issue.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain this evening how there is justice when all the money that is received in benefit is clawed back, although for years the victims have been contributing 9 or 10 per cent. of their incomes to national insurance. All the money is clawed back. The pre-1989 scheme, under which half the benefit was clawed back, contained an element of justice, as the victim was at least allowed to keep his or her own contribution.
There is no justice in the present scheme. When a victim receives compensation for illness, disease or accident, that settlement comprises various elements of damages, such as compensation for previous earnings and loss of future earnings and often a large payment for pain and suffering. When the Government claw back benefits, they ignore those elements and take back everything that has been paid by way of benefit to the victims, even if that encroaches upon any sum awarded for pain and suffering.
That is nothing more than theft. The Government have absolutely no entitlement to money which has been awarded to cover pain and suffering. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House how he justifies that indefensible action.


I said earlier that I became involved in this issue through my association with Clydeside Action on Asbestos and Clydebank Action on Asbestos. Asbestosis sufferers have had to pay back £1 million to the DSS this year. Can one imagine the horror of the situation when sufferers of that terminal and appalling disease fight for years to gain some compensation for the illness inflicted upon them by negligent employers, and then have to pay back their compensation to the DSS?
Clydeside Action on Asbestos has dealt with cases of people who have paid back up to £50,000. Even if they die before the settlement is made, the DSS is at the graveside to claw back the money from mourning dependants.
Asbestosis sufferers have to suffer a terrible ordeal. First, they must prove that they contracted the disease rather than lung cancer or some other illness. They must then prove where they contracted that disease, perhaps 10, 20, 30 or 40 years before, and they must find workmates who can testify that they worked there. They must then locate their employers, many of whom have gone out of business, or find their responsible successor bodies.
They then face years of litigation. If they win their cases, they may have to pay back to the DSS all the money awarded to them. That is a squalid practice, which reflects very badly on this country, and especially on the Government.
I am particularly angry about the situation because my constituency of Clydebank has an asbestos disease rate about 500 times the national average, due to its background of shipbuilding and engineering and the presence of a major asbestos factory. An article in The Glasgow Herald in 1993 about Turner and Newall's asbestos factory is accompanied by a photograph of young factory workers from 1953. All those workers are now dead, and 12 of them died from breathing-related diseases.
The matter is about much more than asbestosis, although I believe that asbestosis sufferers suffer particularly badly because of the time involved in settling their claims. Often, people are desperately ill, and a large part of their settlement is awarded for pain and suffering.
Other injustices are also emerging. What will happen if the insurance companies or the courts make a particularly niggardly settlement? What is the point of appealing that decision when any extra settlement will simply be confiscated by the agents of the Government?
There is increasing evidence—which is known to me and to the trade unions, if not to the Minister—that the clawback is backfiring, as more and more insurance companies are now offering only £2,500, which is the maximum amount that cannot be clawed back. Britain's largest union, Unison, has seen the number of cases which settle at £2,500 increase from 40 in 1990 to 270 in 1993, although the total number of cases has not increased. That is a more than sixfold increase. The Transport and General Workers Union and the GMB report the same findings.
How interesting it is that the victims are so angry with the Government that they would rather those who cause their affliction got off lightly than that the Government recovered more money. It is the reverse of what the

Government intended. They said that the principle was that the negligent and the culpable should not be subsidised by the taxpayer, but that is what is happening.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend comment on my suggestion that the ultimate solution should be for the compensator—either the employer or his insurance company—to have to repay to the state the social security benefits instead of the person who is ill or injured? That would load the dice slightly in favour of workers who are suffering from the exploitation of employers or insurance companies that deliberately stall and offer insulting sums in compensation.

Mr. Worthington: That is a worthwhile idea to explore. The present position is certainly intolerable, as the person who is suffering from the system is the one who has already suffered.
In evidence to the Social Security Select Committee, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers described the effect of the CRU as iniquitous, and so it is.
This afternoon, I listened to the Minister's response to questions from the Social Security Select Committee. It was a depressing and disturbing experience. The Minister seemed to have no knowledge of or concern for the consequences of his policies upon people who had suffered a calamity in their lives. All that mattered to his Department and the Government was efficiently gathering in £100 million per year.
The fact that the system was treating quite brutally victims of industrial accidents, disease and other misfortunes seemed not to bother him at all, and he was quite unable to answer questions about the consequences of his policies upon those people. Bad employers are now benefiting from his policies, because of the increased practice of only £2,500 being offered. That seems to have passed him by, and the Department does not even bother to keep statistics.
He seemed to justify it all by saying that the taxpayer now benefited by £100 million a year. The victims are taxpayers. They paid their national insurance and all their other taxes for years, and they have the right to be considered. Are they being treated fairly? I am a taxpayer, and I do not want tax savings at the expense of those who are injured, maimed or ill.
This afternoon, the Minister seemed unaware that he is no longer supposed to be a smart lawyer. He is supposed to be a Minister of the Crown, and deal with the world of values. I would like him now to defend the values that are causing distress to thousands of people throughout the country through the CRU.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I shall ignore the discourtesy in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
He was right to say that asbestosis cases are some of the hardest for anybody to litigate. The circumstances are usually tragic, the problems of proof many years afterwards and the difficulties of medical evidence all too apparent, but they are the most difficult and hard cases, analogous to the problems of pneumoconiosis and the dangers of radiation damage and other forms of cancer.


There are fundamentally difficult problems of proof that give the plaintiff considerable disadvantages. [Interruption.] I shall finish the sentence. Until the Limitation Acts were relaxed a decade or so ago, they were classically the cases which would never get to court, as the injury did not manifest itself until well after the limitation period.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to the Minister. I assure him that it is not simply an issue of asbestosis. I can show him other cases which are equally tragic, but I know about asbestosis. He mentioned pneumoconiosis. Is he aware that there is a separate scheme for pneumoconiosis sufferers, so that they are not caught up in this scheme? Will he introduce a similar proposal to lift those with asbestosis out of this tragic situation?

Mr. Evans: That is widening the argument considerably. The point at stake is this: we are discussing the assessment of damages for common law actions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue that asbestosis cases should be treated in some different fashion, that is a separate issue. If he does so, he has to bear in mind that they are not necessarily the only hard and difficult cases.
I accept that the operation of the scheme has been seriously misunderstood, and it is painfully obvious that it has been seriously misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman. The fundamental principle—a very old one—is that there should not be double recovery by the plaintiff: in other words, the plaintiff cannot have his cake and eat it. [Interruption.] It is not just the Government who claw back what they pay out. In an ordinary indemnity policy, when the insurers have paid up, they take the advantage of the plaintiff's rights and extract what they can from the defendants.
There is nothing unusual about that principle; indeed, it was embodied in the Beveridge report. A compromise was made in the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, whereby 50 per cent. of certain benefits was deducted under a statutory exception for five years. That compromise, however, was plainly a confusion, The courts added to the difficulty: some benefits were subsequently held to be non-deductible in full, while some were held to be deductible in half.
The most startling conclusion in the line of cases occurred in Hodgson v. Trapp, decided just before the legislation that we are discussing. More than £30,000 in respect of attendance and mobility allowances, cast forward without limitation in terms of numbers of years, was deducted from the plaintiff. The injustice, however, was even worse than that. Under the old scheme, what was deducted went for the benefit of the tortfeasor—the negligent employer; the person who was partly to blame.
It is hardly surprising that the original arrangements under the 1948 Act underwent considerable criticism in a report by the National Audit Commission and another by the Public Accounts Committee—a Committee of the House. The Government were persuaded to act on the basis that the existing system was not working in a coherent fashion, and aspects of it were plainly unjust—particularly to the severely disabled.
Under the old scheme, in the hard cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred—cases in which someone might be rendered paraplegic, for instance—enormous sums of attendance and mobility allowance would be deducted in

full from that person's damages. Something obviously had to be done, and that is why the Government legislated as they did.

Mr. Mackinlay: Out of the frying pan into the fire.

Mr. Evans: That is not the case.
Under the scheme for which we have now legislated, those who receive benefits and recoup moneys must repay the benefit. That is hardly an unjust proposition, and it is hardly startling in an international context. Many other countries in every part of the world have a variety of different mechanisms to protect state welfare payments, and to provide for certain arrangements for the recovery of those payments from those who are guilty—

Mr. Mackinlay: Let us set aside for a moment the question of how compensation should be comprised and assessed. Does the Minister not understand that employers and insurance companies are exploiting the position, because they know that it gives them maximum leverage to make a poor, sick individual settle early and settle for little?

Mr. Evans: No; that is a gross exaggeration. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence to that effect, he should give it to the Select Committee. We shall await its report and see what evidence there is. The Association of British Insurers did not accept that the £2,500 lower limit—which is a practical arrangement—was being abused in the fashion suggested by the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Clydebank and Milngavie.
The arrangements under the legislation are, in broad terms, acceptable and fair to all the parties involved.

Mr. Worthington: No.

Mr. Evans: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may not be persuaded by my argument yet, but let me at least complete this facet of it.
In so far as the plaintiff has received state benefits just as though he had paid out for a private insurance policy on an indemnity basis, if he recovers he has an obligation to repay. If he does not recover, he does not have to repay, but he still receives his state benefits immediately and in full, like anyone else.
The defendants have to pay out money. They have to recoup it under the administrative arrangements of this scheme, whereby insurers pay it direct to the CRU—so the insurer has to pay. The taxpayer is now being paid out a not insignificant sum of money, whereas that sum of money—this shows the injustice of the 1948 scheme—was being used previously to subsidise the negligent and those who were partly to blame for accidents. That cannot be a sensible or reasonable targeting of public expenditure on social security priorities.
Of course, members of the public who are suing prefer to win the maximum damages that a court will award or which the insurers to the defendants might pay up. But traditionally, damages for tort injuries are based on compensation—no more and no less. I think that someone said that the awards for compensation may not be high enough, but that is a rather different issue. The principle is: a person will be compensated for his injuries, no more and no less, under a scheme which is well established and long known.


The problem with the arrangement under the old scheme was that it was unfair to the taxpayer and it dissipated public money in a way that was inconsistent. It was not fair as between different classes of plaintiffs, particularly the severely disabled who had on-going obligations to deduct in respect of attendance and mobility allowance.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister is doing the same as he did this afternoon—telling us what was wrong with the old scheme. I am asking him to justify the new scheme. It was clear this afternoon that the Department does not keep statistics or information. I have more information about the working of the scheme and its consequences for people than the Minister does. Why will he not turn his attention to the workings of the new scheme and its consequences for people?

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to the workings of the new scheme. He undoubtedly has a certain amount of information about its operation. He has tabled large numbers of parliamentary questions about it. The Department of Social Security is well aware of how the scheme operates.
It is not helpful to the House or to anyone to cite, as the hon. Gentleman did, the bald facts of a number of cases, some of which would undoubtedly be thought tragic. But the arrangement must be that the plaintiff in an ordinary action at common law has a case which may be strong, indifferent or weak. That is reflected in the amount that he succeeds in recovering. Understandably, those who may wish to obtain more do not always do so.
The Government had a choice about the way in which the new scheme would operate. How were they to make provision for the repayment of the moneys? As the hon. Member for Thurrock has suggested, it was open to the Government to say that all recouped damages should be added as an extra head of damages. That sounds an extremely attractive proposal to plaintiffs—

Mr. Mackinlay: And fair.

Mr. Evans: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is then an element of double recovery.
It is hardly surprising that such a proposition would be entertained by the insurance industry as an appalling increase in its costs, and a burden by way of additional expenditure on insurance premiums for the rest of the public who are not injured—

Mr. Mackinlay: But it would help health and safety standards in factories.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes the perfectly fair point—even if it is perhaps not in order—that there is a strong public interest in improving safety standards at work, on the roads or anywhere else. The old system, which enabled the negligent employer to take advantage of the taxpayer, is hardly consistent with that argument.
The Government, in introducing the new scheme, had a number of options. We could have created the kind of statutory repayment right—a statutory right of subrogation—that exists in certain other parts of the world, whereby we would nationalise all plaintiffs' claims, take conduct of them and settle them on behalf of the plaintiff, on the basis that so much of the damages could be identified as loss of earnings against which benefit could be offset. The other option that I heard about this afternoon was to agree the proportion of contributory negligence.
The Government, rightly, chose not to do either, because it would have involved considerable administrative expense and meddling in the affairs of plaintiffs who have, and ought to have, free conduct of their litigation. The Government's choice is administratively extremely simple. By placing a requirement on insurers to pay the compensation recovery unit a certified amount to the Government, we have introduced a scheme that, for the first time, gives the taxpayers' interest proper representation.
It would be possible to introduce a case-for-case breakdown to deal with the issues of whether there should be separate heads of damages and contributory negligence. However, only a fraction of personal injury cases lead to litigation, and an even smaller fraction—less than 10 per cent.—are determined by a judge.
The trade unions or lawyers representing both sides in such arguments deploy an exact practitioner's art, and such claims are cheaply and economically settled, with the avoidance of litigation. If we were to introduce a system whereby the Government were to act as big brother and to interfere in that settlement process, we would inevitably create considerable expenditure and place the Department of Social Security in the position of judge, without the expertise and a full and fair trial.
It is simpler and fairer on all parties involved for the Government to recover the whole of their loss. That is not startling or unfair, but is the basis on which insurance companies operate in respect of, for example, ordinary indemnity insurance. You may pay your premiums, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the insurance company always expects to recover its loss from you.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.